Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CROWN LANDS (NO. 2) BILL,

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th day of March, 1927, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

Crown Lands (No. 2) Bill.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PRIVATE BILLS (Petitions for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords].

Southern Railway Bill.

Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Barnes, Cheltenham, Newport (Monmouth), Newtown, and Llanllwchaiarn, Surbiton, and Tees Valley Water Board," presented by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES (BISCUITS).

Mr. W. BAKER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue a comparative table showing the pre-War price of biscuits as compared with the price to-day; and whether he will bring the figures to the special attention of the Food Council?

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what subjects are now under the consideration of the Food Council; and whether it is proposed to make an early investigation of the high price of biscuits?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing pre-War prices of biscuits as compared with present prices. This table will be available to the Food Council, who, however, are already fully occupied with inquiries into the prices of meat, milk and fish.

Mr. BAKER: Will this statement be brought to the notice of the Food Council by the Minister?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is more important that the Food Council should address themselves to the more important articles of universal consumption first.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: May I ask on what date the Food Council will commence their inquiry into fish prices?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question, but I think they have already commenced preliminary investigations.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the table show prices for a great variety of qualities?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would ask my hon. Friend to inspect the table. It has a number of items, but I am not sufficiently an expert myself to say how far it reflects all the qualities.

Mr. BAKER: Having regard to the large field which has to be surveyed, will
the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of adding to the number of the Food Council, or in some other way expediting its business?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not think it would be useful to add to the number of a body which is already representative.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Food

Kind of Biscuit.
Prices at end of 1913. (Per lb.)
Present Prices. (Per lb.)





s
d.
s.
d.


Abernethy, thick
…
…

6
1
4


Arrowroot, plain
…
…

8
1
4


Captain, thin oval
…
…

5½
1
2


Chocolate, mixed
…
…
1
2
2
4


Crackers, Texas
…
…

7
1
5


Cuddy
…
…

4

11½


Dinner
…
…

10
2
2


Garibaldi
…
…

7
1
4


Ginger nuts
…
…

7
1
3


Lunch
…
…

4
1
0½


Marie
…
…

8½
1
5


Milk
…
…

5½
1
3


Oaten
…
…

9½
1
7


Osborne
…
…

7½
1
5


Pat-a-Cakes
…
…

7
1
4


Petit Beurre
…
…

7
1
5


Queen's Shorties
…
…

7
1
4


Ratafia
…
…
1
6
3
8


Royal Scot
…
…

7
1
4


Shortcake
…
…

7
1
4


Tea
…
…

6
1
2½


Wafers, Little Mary
…
…

6
1
2


Water, highly baked
…
…

5½
1
2


Wheatmeal
…
…

8½
1
6


Wine, mixed
…
…

8½
1
8½


Butterette
…
…
1s. 8d. per tin of 2¼ lbs. 4d. allowed on tin.
1s. 44d. per lb. in 2i lb. tins. 8d. allowed on tin.


Crackers, Cold Water
…
…
1s. 4d. per tin of 2¼ lbs. 4d. allowed on tin.
1s. 1½ d. per lb. in 3 lb. tins. 8d. allowed on tin.


Crackers, Cream
…
…
3s. 6d. per tin of 5 lbs. 8d. allowed on tin.
1s. 2½d. per lb. in 5 lb. tins. 1s. allowed on tin.


Digestive
…
…
2s. 2d. per tin of 2¾ lbs. 3d. allowed on tin.
1s. 5½d. per lb. in 7 lb. tins. 1s. allowed on tin.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

GLOVES.

Mr. GREENE: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information regarding the production of leather gloves since the import duty was imposed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: According to returns furnished by the industry, the

Council select the subjects for their inquiries on their own initiative, or whether he, himself, suggests the subjects which are most appropriate for them to consider?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Sometimes one and sometimes the other, but I think we have arrived at general agreement as to what are the important commodities to which to direct their attention.

Following is the Table:

production of leather gloves in the last quarter of 1926 was nearly 30 per cent. greater than in the last quarter of 1925, the figures being approximately 132,000 dozen pairs, as against 102,000 dozen pairs.

Mr. GREENE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether safeguarding has had any effect on the price to the consumer?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question, but, speaking from memory, I do not think prices have risen at all.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the comparative periods there has been an increase of £150,000 paid in wages, and that, so far from there being any unemployment in the industry, there are nearly 1,000 additional employés in it?

Mr. GREENE: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information regarding the production of fabric gloves since the duty was imposed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: According to returns furnished by the industry, the output of fabric gloves in the last quarter of 1926 exceeded the output in the last quarter of 1925 by over one-third.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there are enough glove workers to go round? Could we train some more?

Mr. RILEY: Has there been any increase in the price of fabric gloves since the duty was imposed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Again, I should like notice of that question, but I have certainly received no complaints on that subject. With regard to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), I understand that apprentices are now being taken on in the trade, where there were none being taken on before.

Mr. GREENE: 81.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information as to the increase in the number of workers in the leather glove industry since the import duty was imposed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): From information furnished by the Joint Industrial Council for the Leather Glove Industry, which represents about 88 per cent. of the workpeople employed, it appears that between the last quarter of 1925 and December, 1926, the number of workpeople employed increased from 7,430 to 8,149.

Mr. GREENE: Would not the increase have been much greater if there had
been a sufficient number of cutters to supply material for the other hands?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is a matter of opinion. In any case I would ask my hon. Friend to put his question down.

Mr. RILEY: Has the hon. Gentleman any information that wages have increased to the operatives in the industry?

Mr. BETTERTON: Not that I have noticed. Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down also.

APPLICATIONS.

Sir PARK GOFF: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications for safeguarding which have been referred to his Department: the number of such applications which have been referred to committees; and the number of the applications which have been granted?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of definite applications made to the Board of Trade in accordance with the provisions of the White Paper relating to the Safeguarding of Industries is 42. Committees have been appointed to consider 15 of these applications, and safeguarding duties have been imposed in the case of six.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to be consistent and to go in for complete Protection?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. Whatever may be said on the ground of consistency or merit, there is a far greater argument for keeping our pledges.

Sir H. CROFT: In view of the success of this policy, will the right hon. Gentleman use all his powers to speed up the machinery in regard to applications that are now pending?

CHINA.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the Report of the inquiry in to the application for a safeguarding duty for the china trade; and, if so, when he proposes to make it public?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not yet received this Report.

UNFAIR FOREIGN CONDITIONS.

Sir P. GOFF: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to provide that, on applications for the safeguarding of industries, all evidence of the unfair foreign conditions referred to in the Board of Trade White Paper, which is obtainable by the Government through their foreign commercial attachés, shall be made available for the use of committees without expense to the parties to the application?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Board of Trade are always ready to put at the disposal of committees any information in their possession which can properly be made public. I have already explained to the House the reasons which make it undesirable to disclose information obtained from confidential sources.

RAZORS.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the exports of razors and parts of razors in 1925 and 1926?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The value of razors and parts of razors of United Kingdom manufacture exported from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to all destinations amounted to £140,529 in 1925 and to £184,114 in 1926.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that is due in any way to the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly, it follows chronologically upon it, and I think it is not unfair to infer the connection.

Sir H. CROFT: Was not the principal objection to this duty that it would decrease exports, and has it not had the effect of encouraging them?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member would like to hold a debate on the subject.

CHELSEA HOSPITAL COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. SHORT: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of appointing direct representatives of the rank and
file, or of disabled ex-service men, upon the Board of Commissioners of Cheisea Hospital?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I see no grounds for an alteration of the present constitution of the Board on the lines suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CINEMATOGRAPH EILMS.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of capital invested in the business of producing and exhibiting cinematograph films in Great Britain, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am unable to supply any precise data of the kind asked for. Estimates made by various sections of the trade as to the capital invested in the exhibition side of the industry vary from £30,000,000 to £50,000,000. I should hesitate to give a reliable estimate of the capital employed in production: but I should think that at the present time it does not exceed £4,000,000.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it has increased since his first pronouncement as to the introduction of the Cinematograph Films Bill?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot say that, but I have no doubt that it will increase.

GRAMOPHONES (EXPORTS).

Major SALMON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what have been the exports of gramophones from the United Kingdom since the import duties on musical instruments were reimposed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the information asked for.

Sir H. CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the exports have decreased or increased?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The exports have increased.

Following is the reply:

The following statement gives the information desired:

EXPORTS OF (a) GRAMOPHONES AND PHONOGRAPHS, COMPLETE; (b) RECORDS; AND (c) PARTS OF (INCLUDING MOTORS).


Period.
Gramophones and Phonographs complete.
Records.
Parts of Gramophones and Phonographs (including motors).
Total.




(i) Quantities Exported.




No.
Dozens.




1925–1st July-31st December
…
76,786
373,396
Cannot
be stated.


1926–1st January-31st December
…
224,419
814,963


1927—January and February
…
38,552
139,202


Total Quantity
…
339,757
1,327,561






(ii) Declared Value thereof.




£
£
£
£


1925–1st July-31st December
…
256,908
389,179
108,456
754,543


1926–1st January-31st December
…
816,930
750,195
292,370
1,859,495


1927—January and February
…
156,402
126,165
47,052
329,619


Total Value
…
1,230,240
1,265,539
447,878
2,943,657

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

PLOVER (CLOSE SEASON).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the first and last dates of the present close season for plover prevailing in Scotland; and whether he will consider making that season uniform?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The close time varies between county and county. I shall be giad to send my hon. Friend a schedule showing the position, if he so desires. As regards the second part of the question, I do not wish to anticipate discussion on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir C. Morrison-Bell), but it will be noted that that Bill is designed to secure a uniform close season for this and other birds according to their categories.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to see that included in this uniform close season is the much disputed farm at Erribol?

SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACTS.

Mr. HARDIE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amounts advanced each year from 1919 onwards under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts in Scotland; and the number of houses to which the loans applied?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In order to give the figures desired, I should require to call for returns from the local authorities under the Acts, and I am not satisfied that the work involved would be justified. I may say, however, that I have information which indicates that since the passing of the Housing etc. Act, 1923, 14 local authorities have undertaken to advance £585,041 in respect of 1,116 houses.

Mr. HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to keep a record of what is being done, have that record got out?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This is a matter which primarily concerns local authorities, and it would entail a great deal of expense and research.

Mr. HARDIE: If this House is involved in the voting of that money, is it not essential to know the absolute details of how the money is spent?

SCARRISTAVEY FARM, SOUTH HARRIS.

Colonel DAY (for Mr. N. MACLEAN): 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the proprietor of Scarristavey, in South Harris, was prepared to negotiate with the Board of Agriculture for the sale of that farm; whether he can state if any negotiations took place; and whether the correspondence between the Board and the proprietor will be submitted to the House?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The basis which the Board considered appropriate in the case of this farm was not purchase but a scheme under Part II of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, and the Board are not aware what were the proprietor's intentions with respect to the question of sale. Proposals for a scheme of settlement under Part II were made to the proprietor in May last and are still open for his acceptance. I do not propose to lay the correspondence before the House.

Colonel DAY (for Mr. N. MACLEAN): 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he is aware that a number of men have taken possession of the farm of Scarristavey, Harris; that they are now being threatened with interdict; that some of these men are living under deplorable conditions through lack of employment and adequate housing; and that some of them have 25 years' service in His Majesty's forces and hold decorations for long service and good conduct; and, seeing that the Government during and since the War promised them that their claim for holdings would be met, will he state what steps will now be taken to implement these promises?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that interdict was obtained against certain men who have been in illegal occupation of parts of Scaristaveg Farm. I would remind the hon. Member that in introducing the Vote for the Board of Agriculture for Scotland last June I referred to this particular case and stated that I would not entertain the claims of any men who raid, and that I would not give way
to unfair or unreasonable action on the part of a small section to the detriment of others who are in equally difficult circumstances. I regret that any ex-service or other men should have prejudiced their case by illegal action but I must adhere to the statement to which I have referred.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the War ended in 1918, and that these ex-service men are still waiting?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that, and I am also aware of the fact that the Government have done a very great deal for ex-service men.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Colonel DAY (for Mr. N. MACLEAN): 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what demand for small holdings still remains unsatisfied in Lewis and Harris; how many applications the Board of Agriculture have in hand from men in these districts desirous of obtaining holdings; an I what step? the Board is taking to meet the requirements of these applicants?"

Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of applications received by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for new holdings in Lewis and Harris which remains undisposed of is 746. The Board are at present considering the possibility of effecting further settlements in Harris, but I would remind the hon. Member that land suitable for sub-division and close settlement in the area referred to in his question is very limited and it is not desirable that all farms of size should be broken up into small holdings.

MINERAL TRANSPORT (STANDING COMMITTEE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give the names of the members of the Standing Joint Committee on Mineral Transport?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): As the Committee is a large one, I will circulate the names of its members and its terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This information was published in the Press on 18th February.

Following is the reply:

STANDING COMMITTEE ON MINERAL TRANSPORT.

The Minister of Transport and the Secretary for Mines announce that they have appointed a Standing Committee to be known as the Standing Committee on Mineral Transport with the following terms of reference:—
To review the equipment available in connection with the transport of coal from the coalfields to the ports and internal markets of the country and the methods of conducting such transport, and, with special reference to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925), to devise means of promoting such improvements in that equipment and its use as will lead to the greatest efficiency and economy in transport, and be of mutual advantage to the coal mining industry and the transport agencies; to report to the Minister of Transport and to the Secretary for Mines upon the steps taken, and upon any further measures necessary from time to time to bring about desirable alterations, and generally to watch over this matter and the progressive realisation of the economies and improvements which the report of the Royal Commission considers possible.

The Committee is constituted as follows:—

Sir Arthur M. Duckham, K.C.B., M.I.C.E. (Chairman), Chairman of the Woodall-Duckham Companies, formerly Member of Council of Ministry of Munitions, Member of Air Council, Director-General of Aircraft Production and Member of the Coal Industry Commission, 1919.
Mr. R. Bell, C.B.E., Assistant General Manager, London and North Eastern Railway Company.
Mr. Ernest Bevin, General Secretary, Transport and General Workers' Union.
Mr. J. R. Brooke, C.B., Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Transport.
Mr. H. W. Cole, C.B.E., Assistant Under-Secretary for Mines.
Mr. F. W. Cooper, Partner in the firm of Messrs. Edwin A. Cornwall, Coal Merchants.
Mr. H. L. Greiģ, Managing Director of Messrs. J. Brownlie and Company (Hull, Ltd.), Coal Exporters, and President of the British Coal Exporters' Federation.
184
Mr. T. C. Hardie, Managing Director of Messrs. Archibald Russell, Limited, Glasgow, Colliery Proprietors.
Mr. H. J. Heath, Director of the Clyncorrwg Colliery Company, Limited, Cardiff.
Mr. C. W. Hurcomb, C.B., C.B.E., Principal Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Transport.
Mr. H. G. Lewis, Chairman and Managing Director of Messrs. Henry G. Lewis and Company, and associated with several other companies concerned in building, repairing and hiring out of railway wagons.
Mr. J. Milne, C.S.I., Assistant General Manager, Great Western Railway Company.
Mr. R. F. W. R. Nelson, Chairman and Managing Director, Messrs. Hurst, Nelson and Company, and Chairman of Wagons Repairs, Limited.
Mr. George Rose, Chairman of Messrs. Rose, Smith and Company, Limited, Coal Factors.
Mr. Gilbert S. Szlumper, C.B.E., Assistant General Manager, Southern Railway.
Right Hon. J. H. Thomas, M.P., Parliamentary General Secretary, National Union of Railwaymen.
Mr. L. A. P. Warner, C. B.E., General Manager and Secretary, Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
Mr. E. Wharton, Mineral Traffic Manager, London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company.
The Royal Commission on the Coal Industry (1925) recommended the appointment of such a Committee.
Mr. W. D. Duffield, of the Ministry of Transport, and Mr. F. C. Starling, of Mines Department, will act as joint Secretaries to the Committee, and all communications should addressed to:—

The Joint Secretaries,

Standing Committee on Mineral

Transport,

7, Whitehall Gardens, S.W.I.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

BY-PROOUCTS.

Mr. BATEY: 27 and 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of works in existence in Great Britain which are manufacturing by-products from coal; and the number of workers employed;
(2) the number of by-product works in connection with the coal-mining industry; the number worked as part of the colliery; the number worked as separate companies; and the dividends paid in each of the years 1924, 1925 and 1926, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It appears from the information supplied to the Board of Trade in connection with the Third Census of Production that the average number of persons (including operative, clerical and administrative staffs) employed at coke works at collieries in 1924 was 13,348, and the number at coke works at blast furnaces 5,200. At all the latter works by-products are manufactured, but at the former the plant includes a considerable number of beehive ovens, some companies recovering no by-products.
I may be able at a later date to give the numbers of persons employed at works at which by-products are manufactured, and as to the number of coke works, but these particulars are not at present available. I am also not in possession of information as to the dividends paid by companies owning coke works.

WAGONS (STANDARDISATION).

Mr. BATEY: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any action has been taken to secure the standardisation of coal wagons; and if he can state the number of wagons that would be required for the transport of coal if they all had a capacity of 20 tons, and the number at present in use?

Colonel LANE FOX: In reply to the first part of the question, this matter is now under the consideration of the recently appointed Standing Committee on Mineral Transport. In reply to the latter part, I cannot give the hon. Member the precise particulars for which he asks, but he will find a great deal of interesting information on the subject in Chapter IX of the Report of the Samuel Commission.

COLLIERIES (AMALGAMATION).

Mr. WRIGHT: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of companies that have amalgamated under The Mining Industry Act, 1926: the districts where
they are situated; and the amount saved to the companies in respect of stamp duties?

Colonel LANE FOX: The only scheme of amalgamation which has yet been confirmed by the Court under the Mining Industry Act, 1926, is that of four collieries in South Yorkshire. I am informed that the stamp duties which would have been payable but for the Act would have amounted to £76,000 or more, a charge which it was stated by the promoters would have been prohibitive.

Mr. RILEY: May I ask whether other applications have been before the Department?

Colonel LANE FOX: I think the hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the recent amalgamation of anthracite mines comes under the Act and whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has included that?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, I have not included that; but it certainly does come under the Act.

REINSTATEMENT.

Mr. PALING (for Mr. WHITELEY): 23.
asked the Secretary of Mines whether his attention has been called to the many cases of victimisation at the various collieries since the end of the coal stoppage; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps with a view to such victimisation being brought to an end?

Colonel LANE FOX: I would refer the hon. Member to what was said on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in the Debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Bothwell on the 2nd March.

WORKERS (STATISTICS).

Mr. WRIGHT: 31.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of workers employed in each of the 13 coal-mining districts in Great Britain in February, 1926: and the number who were working in each district in the last complete week in February, 1927?

Colonel LANE FOX: I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Number of wage-earners employed at coal mines in Great Britain during the weeks ended 27th February, 1926, and 26th February, 1927.

District.
27th February, 1926.
26th February 1927.


Scotland
127,247
110,835


Northumberland
57,227
54,028


Durham
156,111
131,278


South Wales and Monmouth
212,691
186,107


Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Cannock Chase and Warwickshire
366,594
356,440


Lancashire, North Staffordshire and Cheshire
133,094
123,492


North Wales
17,677
15,331


South Staffordshire and Salop
10,005
10,014


Cumberland
11,416
11,417


Bristol
1,447
953


Forest of Dean
7,041
6,342


Somerset
5,139
4,261


Kent
1,837
2,186


Great Britain
1,107,526
1,012,684

UNEMPLOYED MINERS (TRANSFER).

Mr. WRIGHT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if any arrangements have yet been made for the transfer of unemployed miners to districts where employment is available?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has communicated to the associations representing employers and workers in the coal mining industry proposals regarding the recruitment of workers in the industry, and is awaiting their replies.

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest difficulty is the lack of housing accommodation in the districts to which it is intended to send these new men, and is he aware that the result of the Government blocking the subsidy in those particular districts is that they are now building fewer houses than they otherwise would be doing; and in view of the special circumstances of
this neighbourhood, will he give the matter further consideration?

Mr. BETTERTON: No doubt all these matters will be considered by the associations which are now considering them. The result of their deliberations and conclusions will be included in the reply which we hope soon to obtain.

Mr. BATEY: Is it proposed to give financial assistance to the miners to enable them to remove from one district to another?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot say anything more until we get the replies, and it would not be proper for me to do so until we get the views of the associations whom we have consulted.

Mr. BATEY: When may we expect the replies?

Mr. BETTERTON: The circulars went out on Saturday last. and we hope we may get the replies in the near future without any avoidable delay. That, of course, rests with those to whom we have addressed inquiries.

WINDING ENGINES (ACCIDENTS).

PALING: 25 and 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) how many collieries in Great Britain have steam-driven winding engines and electrically-driven winding engines, respectively;
(2) how many accidents have occurred during the last five years due to over-winding; how many have occurred since 1st December, 1926; how many deaths occurred as a result of such accidents; and in how many cases was electrically-driven winding gear in use?

Colonel LANE FOX: About 2,440 collieries have steam winding engines and 240 electric. In the five years 1922–26 58 accidents occurred causing injury to persons employed, including 14 deaths; since the 1st December five such accidents have occurred, causing three deaths. One of the former, causing injury but not death, and none of the latter, occurred with an electric winder.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures prove that electrical winding-gear is safer than the other gear? Is there sufficient proof to warrant that?

Colonel LANE FOX: I think, generally, that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

NEW BRIDGE (THOENE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the continued delay over the proposed new bridge at Thorne, near Doncaster, and the unsafe condition of the approach to the old bridge; is he aware that no warning sign is exhibited when the present bridge is open, and that one motorist drove right into the canal last summer and another motorist drove into the canal this year, due to the absence of any warning sign; and will he now insist upon the erection of the new bridge and allocate the expense equitably on all responsible parties?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Although I am not aware of the particular accidents to which the hon. Member refers, I am well acquainted with the inadequacy of the present bridge, and the unfortunate delay in the negotiations. My Department has made every effort to promote a settlement and will continue to do so, but I have no power to impose terms or to compel the responsible parties to collaborate in the provision of a new bridge.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the navigation company refuse to take any steps towards the building of a new bridge; and does he not think, if he has not got the power already, that he ought to obtain power to compel such a body to do something in such a ease.

Colonel ASHLEY: I know the unfortunate conditions, because I visited this place some six weeks ago in order to get acquainted with them. I do not think the position is exactly as the hon. Member states. I think the canal company are willing to enter into an arrangement to find a portion of the cost—that is my recollection—but the difficulty is that neither the county council nor the company can come to an agreement as to who is to operate the bridge.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the West Riding County Council have agreed to pay pretty well four-fifths of the money necessary for the new bridge; and seeing
that a similar question was put down three years ago, does he not now think it is time that something was done?

Colonel ASHLEY: I quite agree that, if the Government had the power,, it would be desirable to compel these parties to come to an arrangement, but I have not got those powers.

LONDON OMNIBUSES (FAKES).

Colonel APPLIN: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport how many non-combine omnibuses have been absorbed by the London General Omnibus Company during the past year; whether, in these cases, the same rate of passenger fare has been maintained after the absorption; and whether, on any route, there is a discrepancy between the fares charged by the London General Omnibus Company in their regulation omnibuses and the rates charged in the late privately-owned omnibuses?

Colonel ASHLEY: The number of independently-owned omnibuses in which the London General Omnibus Company have now acquired a controlling interest is 207. This covers a period of about 18 months. The fares charged on these omnibuses have been adjusted to accord with those charged on the rest of the London General Omnibus Company omnibuses. I am informed that 937 alterations have been made in the fare boards of these vehicles. In 476 cases the fares have been increased and in 461 cases they have been reduced. In addition, facilities, such as exchange tickets for omnibus and rail, return tickets, etc., afforded to passengers using London General Omnibus Company omnibuses, have been extended to passengers travelling on the acquired omnibuses.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the result of the London Transport Act has been to give a monopoly to the combine without getting anything in return?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think any acquisition of independent omnibuses by the London General Omnibus Company has anythng to do with the Transport Act.

Major CRAWFURU: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the volume of traffic on those routes where there has been a decrease and of the volume of traffic on those routes where there has been an increase?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, I have no statistics to show that.

STREET CROSSING PLACES (SIGNPOSTS).

Colonel DAY: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is intended to extend throughout London the system of the erection of signs, Please cross here, now in operation in Parliament Square, so that the public should be better acquainted with authorised crossing-places?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is proposed to extend this experiment to Trafalgar Square, Marble Arch and Oxford Street. If it appears in the light of the experience thus gained that these notices sensibly reduce accidents, I hope that the local authorities concerned with undertake further signposting on the same lines.

Colonel DAY: Would the Minister consider the question of recommending the erection of these signs at the Elephant and Castle, in the borough of Southwark, where it is particularly dangerous to cross the roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think we had better experiment in these other areas first of all then we can go on to other places.

RAILWAY PASSENGER FARES.

Colonel DAY: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received representations from any of the railway companies or other bodies making a request that the Government should introduce legislation having as its object the reduction of fares charged to the travelling public on railways in Great Britain to the rate of 1d. a mile; and. if so, can he state the Government's attitude to this request?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part docs not, therefore. arise. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Railway Rates Tribunal has been established as the authority for determining matters relating to charges by railway.

SMOKING IN OMNIBUSES.

Mr. W. BAKER: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is proposing in his Road Traffic Bill to insert a clause empowering him to deal with smoking in omnibuses?

Colonel ASHLEY: The draft Road Traffic Bill which has been published contains provisions which would enable me to make Regulations to deal with this matter.

Mr. THURTLE: In taking any action in connection with this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the vote-catching power of the Prime Minister's pipe?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TRANSATLANTIC RADIOTELEPHONE SERVICE.

Colonel DAY: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General with what success the tests have been made for wireless telephone calls between Germany and America, via London, and if an agreement between the British and German postal authorities for wireless telephone conversations has been entered into; and whether experimental tests have taken place, and with what success, for telephone conversations by Transatlantic radio telephony between Lisbon and London, via Madrid and Paris, and Vienna and London, via Berlin?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL: (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): No radiotelephone tests have been made between Germany and America via this country, nor has any relative agreement been entered into. I am afraid I do not clearly follow the second part of the question. The Transatlantic radiotelephone service has no bearing on the prospects of telephone communication between this country and Lisbon or Vienna.

STAMP-SELLING MACHINES.

Mr. SHORT: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of stamp-selling machines installed in Wednesbury; and whether he will arrange for the installation of machines outside district post offices for the convenience of the public when such offices are closed?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Pairs of stamp-selling machines supplying ½d. and 1d. stamps, respectively, have been installed at the chief post offices in Wednesbury and Darlaston: no others have yet been erected in the Wednesbury area. The supply of these machines
outside important post offices is being extended as rapidly as circumstances permit.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those stamp-selling machines are made in Britain?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think so, but I would like the hon. Gentleman to give me notice of that question.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Post Office stocks any question-asking machines?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the occasions when these machines are most required, that is, on Sundays, when the post offices are closed, they are usually empty?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have not heard that, but if the hon. Gentleman will bring any case to my notice, I will see that it is attended to.

KIOSKS.

Mr. SHORT: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the number of combined telephone, stamp-selling machines, and letter-box kiosks now erected in England and Wales?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: One.

BEAM WIRELESS (ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the establishment of the Beam wireless system between England and Australia; whether successful trials have yet taken place; what stations are being fitted in England and Australia, respectively, for the exchange of messages; and when he expects to be able to commence a regular service?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Beam wireless stations erected in this country for the Australian service have passed the seven-day test required by the contract and are about to be taken over by the Post Office. The sending station is at Grimsby and the receiving station at Skegness. The corresponding stations in Australia are at Ballan and Rockbank near Melbourne; and it is pro-
posed to operate the service between Lon[...]on and Melbourne. Many detailed arrangements have still to be made, and I cannot yet state on whate date the service will be opened to the public.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could any indication be given of the cost of these services?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The capital cost?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, the ordinary cost per message.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The rates? No, not at present. That is one of the subjects which is under discussion.

NON-PENSIONABLE WORKERS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the desirability of retaining such non-pensionable workers as there are in the employ of the Department until they are 65 years of age, seeing that under the Widows,' Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act the old age pension is payable at 65 years of age?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is already the practice to retain non-pensionable officers of the Post Office until the age of 65, or even longer, provided that they are fully efficient and that the interests of the service do not require their earlier retirement.

"RADIO TIMES" (PRINTING CONTRACT).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the printing contract for the "Radio Times" was fixed after competitive tenders were received; whether the State printing works were invited to tender; if the present contract provides for a break; and how long it has yet to run?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The British Broadcasting Corporation took over the printing contract made by the British Broadcasting Company subject to certain modifications in the Corporation's favour. The Corporation inform me that they did not invite competitive tenders, but they are satisfied that the terms secured are satisfactory and the responsibility for the contract rests with them.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the Postmaster-General made any communication to the British Broadcasting Corporation, that it would be inadvisable in future to give large public contracts without having competitive tenders?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The British Broadcasting Corporation make many hundreds of contracts; the responsibility is theirs, and I do not propose to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.

Mr. OLIVER: 44.
asked the Minister of Pensions, seeing that sums paid in error are recovered from pensioners, if he will make arrangements so that a pensioner might receive arrears of allowances in respect of children when, owing to ignorance, the claim for the allowance, in addition to pension, was not made until the child was several years of age?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): It is not the case that all sums paid in error are recovered from pensioners. The full circumstances of each case are taken into consideration in determining the question. Allowances are awarded in respect of all children known from the pensioner's own statements to be eligible, and the basis of payment is indicated in the notification of award issued to the pensioner. In the circumstances I should not be justified in extending the Ministry's liability in the manner suggested.

SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.

Mr. OLIVER: 62.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will take action to remove the seven years' limit during which a claim to pension must be made after the termination of active service in the case of men suffering from gunshot wounds, and, in cases where there is evidence that the gunshot wound was due to service and no claim to pension has been made, authorise the issue of treatment allowances to men receiving treatment in a Ministry of Pensions institution for the said wounds?

Major TRYON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the
hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. W. Robinson) on the 10th ultimo, of which I am sending a copy. The arrangements I have made are satisfactorily meeting the needs of the class of case referred to. A patient in such a case is not entitled to the allowances payable under the Warrant, but an allowance may be issued under special sanction for the support of his family during the period of treatment.

CORRECTION OF ERRORS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 63.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of pensions awarded under Circular 30, Correction of Errors, and the number of applications that have been rejected.

Major TRYON: The aggregate number of cases in which additional grants have been made under special sanction (including cases of secondary disability, re-amputation, change of diagnosis and other cases) has amounted during the past three years to approximately 3,800, or less than 1 per cent. of the final awards declared. These cases are not the subject of application, but arise in the course of medical treatment.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the overlapping on so many questions of the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office, he will consider the advisability of making the Ministry of Transport into a branch of the Home Office?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on the 10th February in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Heywood and Radcliffe.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the Prime Minister aware that when questions are put to the Minister of Transport we are referred to the Home Office, and when questions are put to the Home Office we are referred to the Minister of Transport, with the result that the grievance is never remedied?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, will he take into consideration that,
when my friends come into office, and we take over the railways, we shall need a Minister of Transport? [An HON. MEMBER: "Which friends?"]

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

WIDOWER'S ALLOWANCES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the inequality of allowances as; granted to a widower who has a female relative or other female acting in the capacity of housekeeper, and the spinster whose profession necessitates the same female assistance; and will he consider amending this particular Section of Income Tax law so that allowances shall be equal in each case?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Opportunities for discussing this and similar questions will no doubt arise in the course of the Debates on the forthcoming Finance Bill, and the hon. Member will not expect me at the present time to anticipate those discussions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this inequality, and can he not say to the House at all events that he will consider seriously the squaring of the matter as between a spinster and the widower, who are in similar circumstances?

HOUSE OWNERS.

Sir P. GOFF: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that owing to the inadequacy of the phrasing of the general rule, No. 19, of the Income Tax Act, 1918, numerous people in poor circumstances who, having assisted State housing by purchasing their houses under schemes approved by the Ministry of Health, are being made to bear the additional burden of Income Tax in spite of the fact that their incomes from their employments are far below the taxable scale, and have in some cases been threatened with distraint notices whilst unemployed; and will he look into the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not understand how the burden of Income Tax has fallen upon the people to whom my hon.
Friend refers, but if he will let me have particulars of any cases in which difficulty has arisen, I will gladly have them investigated and will communicate to him the result of my inquiries.

APPEALS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give under the following heads, for the period 1922-26, the number of Income Tax appeals heard in the United Kingdom by special commissioners or general commissioners; the number of decisions given in favour of the Crown; the number of decisions given in favour of the taxpayer; the number of cases in which a case is demanded by the Crown: and the number of cases in which a case is demanded by the taxpayer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks in regard to the very large number of appeals heard annually by the special commissioners and by the 700 bodies of general commissioners throughout the country, is not available. I am, however, able to give my hon. and gallant Friend some particulars relating to Income Tax appeals to the Courts during the five years 1921 to 1925; during this period there were 103 appeals to the Courts from decisions by the general commissioners and special commissioners, 43 by the Revenue and 60 by taxpayers.

CURRENT PAYMENTS.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury up to what date in the current financial year will payments made in respect of Income Tax and Super-tax be accounted for in this year's revenue?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): As and when realised and transmitted to Headquarters, all sums received in payment of these taxes are credited to the general account of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at the Bank of England, and the Commissioners transfer every day to the Exchequer the total amount available in their account after allowance has been made for any repayments. All sums received by the Exchequer up to and including the 31st March will be included in this year's revenue.

NATIONAL DEBT (INTEREST PAYMENTS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the interest on the National Debt paid during the present financial year up to 12th March had already exceeded the estimate for the whole year to 31st March by the sum of £10,834,787?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The principal reason is that, as my hon. Friend may remember, during last year there was for some time a cessation of work upon the coalfields.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Chancellor tell me specifically whether the cause is an increase in the rate of interest on the Floating Debt, or are there other causes as well?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall have to deal with this matter on the 11th of next month, and I do not think I should anticipate the considered statement which it will then be my duty to make.

BETTING DUTY.

Sir FRANK MEYER: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received in respect of the Betting Duty for the month of February?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The revenue derived from betting taxation during the month of February was £92,700.

Sir F. MEYER: In view of the fact that the total amount collected, including the sum the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, is considerably less than the estimate, can he tell the House whether this is due to the fact that his estimate of the total amount of betting was faulty, or whether it is due to a reduction in the amount of betting?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no doubt that various explanations could be put forward, according to taste, on that subject, but I shall in the course of the discussion on the Finance Bill very likely be afforded an opportunity of dealing with the Betting Duty, and I should prefer to make my statement as a whole.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he is receiving any deputations on this matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. I am receiving one amalgamated deputation.

ALIENS (POLL-TAX).

Captain STREATFEILD: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider imposing a poll tax upon all aliens in Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are employed in a wage-earning capacity?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Budget statement.

Captain STREATFEILD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the vast number of people of foreign nationality who are now holding positions in this country to the exclusion of our own people, and does he not think the time has come when some form of protection for British labour should be introduced?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was always under the impression that, on the whole, there was a smaller proportion of foreigners resident in Britain than in almost any other large country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the putting of a tax on the people who are holding the land of this country idle?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think all the budding Chancellors of the Exchequer should wait a little bit.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX DEPARTMENTS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the interests of economy, he has taken any further steps during the past year to bring about an amalgamation of the work of the Income Tax and Super-tax Departments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot discuss my hon. and gallant Friend's assumption within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question, but it is open to great doubt whether his proposal would lead to any economy.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer remember inform-
ing the House how great was the need for savings and economies in public Departments, and that was before the last Budget?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not say that I have not seriously considered the matter. I only said the result of any such consideration could hardly be imparted at the present time.

ACTON BUILDING.

Viscountess ASTOR: 83.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the number of men and women for whom accommodation is provided in the Government building at Acton; for what proportion of these respectively are dressing rooms available; how many of the remaining officers share lockers in the corridors, and what is the space available in the lockers for hanging up coats; whether on a wet day there is any provision for hanging coats in the air to dry; whether umbrella stands are provided; whether it is considered that the present arrangements are satisfactory; and, if not, what stops are being taken to remedy them?

Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The numbers of men and women at present housed in the Government building at Acton are 2,176 and 1,726 respectively. No dressing rooms are provided. Locker accommodation is available for 3,024 officers and cloak room accommodation for the remainder. The lockers are about 15 inches deep and la inches wide and vary in height from 54½inches to 66½inches. They are properly ventilated. There is no provision for hanging coats in the air on wet days. Umbrella fittings are provided in all lockers. The present arrangements are considered satisfactory.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman go himself and see the present arrangements and 6ee whether he considers them satisfactory?

Captain HACKING: I really have not time to go and investigate personally complaints made in the House, but I understand that representations can be made by the staff if they have any complaint, but that no representation has yet been made. If and when it is made it will be considered.

LAND REGISTEY (TYPISTS).

Viscountess ASTOR: 71.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that on the 29th April, 1926, a deputation waited upon the chief registrar of His Majesty's Land Registry, and presented a claim on behalf of certain of his women staff; that the claim was promised early and careful consideration; that up till now it has neither been accepted nor rejected, nor have alternative proposals been put to the staff; and whether, in these circumstances, he will arrange for an early statement of the official position to be made?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I presume that the Noble Lady refers to a claim made on behalf of certain typists that they should be graded as clerical officers. I understand that discussions have been proceeding with the association concerned, but it has not yet been possible to reach a decision owing to the matter having involved a larger question concerning the reorganisation of the Department in order to cope with the vastly increased work due to recent legislation. It is hoped to communicate a decision on the matter at an early date.

INLAND KEVENUK APPEALS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of cases where the Commissioners of Taxes have paid the costs incurred by the taxpayer in cases of appeal?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is intending to refer to the Commissioners of Enland Revenue, as the costs in Income Tax and Super-tax cases are never borne by the Income Tax Commissioners concerned. On this assumption the answer to his inquiry is that normally the costs follow the decision of the Court, which means that the unsuccessful party, whether the taxpayer or the Revenue, is adjudged by the Court to pay the costs of the action. As to the number of cases, my hon. and gallant Friend's question does not indicate any period of time, but I may state that in the course of the five years, 1921 to 1925, the taxpayer was successful in 25 cases of Income Tax appeals to the Courts and the Crown in 78.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Where cases are taken up at the instigation of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as test cases, would the Government then pay the costs?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I received a deputation two years running, and they made some remarks which might be interpreted in the sense that in exceptional cases it might be possible to consider that, but I certainly do not wish to commit myself further than that.

COMPANY AMALGAMATIONS (STAMP DUTIES).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that during 1926 a number of limited companies were registered with the expressed object of effecting amalgamation between companies conducting similar businesses, and that such registrations involved in effect the payment twice over of the capital duty of £1 per £100 upon the issued capital of the constituent companies apart from the conveyance duty: and, in view of the fact that amalgamations beneficial to industry are often prevented by reason of the high duties payable, if he is prepared to consider in his Budget an exemption from stamp duties in all cases where amalgamations are effected and the members of the new company are identical with the members of the constituent companies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend will not expect me in a matter of this kind either to discuss the assumption which he makes or to anticipate the Budget statement.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Company Law Amendment Committee describes this double duty as an unjustifiable burden on industry, and that is acknowledged in the case of recent coal-mining amalgamations?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that amalgamations are beneficial, particularly to the consumer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman had better ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden).

Sir R. THOMAS: Are not these amalgamations brought about mainly for the purpose of escaping taxation, and will the right hon. Gentleman put every obstacle in the way in order to prevent them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that represents either the facts or the cause.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS

Mr. Churchill's Statement.

Mr. ROY WILSON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Great Britain will receive more this year from Germany in reparation payments than she will have to pay to the United States in respect of war debt instalments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. Sir. This year our receipts from German reparations will represent about one-third of our payments to the United States.

Mr. WILSON: In view of the fact that a statement to the contrary effect, attributed to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, was reported in the "Times" of Thursday last, will my right hon. Friend be good enough to see that the answer he has now given gets the widest form of publicity possible?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As soon as I saw the newspaper report, I asked the Foreign Office to make an inquiry, in order that we might know exactly what had been said; but this particular question of my hon. Friend does not represent what Mr. Mellon is reported to have said.

Mr. BENNETT: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with regard to inter-Allied debts, he can state how much from this year on Great Britain will every year receive from her debtors, and how much she will pay to the United States?

Mr. CHURCHILL: During the calendar year 1927, Great Britain should receive £12¾ millions in respect of German Reparation (including Belgian War Debt), and £9½millions in respect of Allied War Debts, or £22¼ millions in all, and will pay £33 millions to the United States Government During 1928, Great Britain should receive £16¾ millions from Reparation and £ll¼ millions from War Debts, or £28¼ millions in all, and will
again pay £33 millions to the United States Government. From 1929 onwards our receipts would be sufficient, on the assumption that it is found possible to transfer the full Dawes annuities, to cover current payments to the United States Government, which rise in 1933 to nearly £33 millions. But, even if the full Dawes payments were received each year for 60 years from now, our receipts from Separation and Allied War Debts would not be sufficient, on the basis of present values, to cover our payments to the United States Government, including those made in the past before we received anything from our debtors. Further, in accordance with the policy outlined in the Balfour Note, His Majesty's Government have undertaken that, in the event of their aggregate receipts from reparations and inter-Allied War Debts exceeding their aggregate payments to the United States (including those made in the past), they will make a proportionate abatement in the next payments due to them under the various War Debt funding agreements, so that in no circumstances can His Majesty's Government retain any excess over their payments to the United States Government.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he calculated the figure of £11,500,000 that he expects to get from War Debts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can quite easily give the figures, but I do not think I had better improvise them by mental arithmetic at the moment. I will, however, give them to the right hon. Gentleman at any time. As a matter of fact, there is, I think, £6,000,000 from France, £4,000,000 from Italy, and the rest is made up of smaller items.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Did the right hon. Gentleman include the expectation of £6,000,000 a year from France, and does he think, in view of the statements of M. Poincaré, that that expectation is likely to be realized?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I have a definite agreement with France with regard to that for the present year.

Lieut.-Commander KENW0RTHY: Are we to understand that Lord Balfour's declaration is to be considered as bind-
ing upon us for the future with regard to debts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It was a declaration that we made, setting out for our own guidance the policy we intended to pursue, and the policy which we have been pursuing to a very large extent. In the course of various settlements that we have made with different debtors, we have incorporated the Balfour principle of taking no more than is required from us.

Lieut.-Commander KENW0RTHY: There is nothing binding about it?

Mr.: CHURCHILL: Certainly it is binding if it is incorporated in an agreement.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these facts are circulated to all foreign nations, so as to overtake the misleading statements made by Mr. Mellon?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think we ought to assume that those statements are misleading until the actual report of what was said is received in this country. When I am in possession of that, I dare say it will be possible for me to make a statement which will show exactly where any ground of divergence occurs.

Captain GARR0-J0NES: Have the French Government yet ratified the Agreement referred to by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, it has not been ratified. I recently answered a question on that subject, put, I think, by the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, when I stated the arrangements made for the forthcoming year.

Sir H. CROFT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any expectation, private or public, of getting anything from Russia?

DOMINIONS AND DEPENDENCIES (CAPITAL LIABILITIES).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts have been recovered by His Majesty's Government from the Governments of the British Dominions or
Dependencies since 11th November, 1918, in discharge of capital liabilities; what amount out of these has taken the form of the cancellation of mutual indebtedness; what amount has been put to revenue under special receipts; and what amount has been otherwise dealt with?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures in answer to this question.

Following are the figures:

The hon. Member's question contains a number of assumptions with regard to what he calls "capital liabilities," which I must not be assumed to accept in their entirety.

The amount repaid to the present date is £135,742,824, of which £100,965,280 represented the cancellation of mutual indebtedness. Of the balance of £34,777,544, the sum of £24,968,954 was, prior to 1st April, 1922, treated as revenue, and the sum of £9,808,590 has, since the 1st April, 1922, been paid to the National Debt Commissioners to be used in cancelling debt.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ARABLE ACREAGE, EAST ANGLIA.

Mr. MARCH: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of land were in arable cultivation in East Anglia during the years, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, and 1926, respectively, and the number of men engaged during each of the years on such land?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information desired so far as it is available.

Following is the statement:

The acreage of arable land, total acreage of crops and permanent grass, and total number of males returned as employed on agricultural holdings in East Anglia (Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex) on 4th June in each of the years 1920 to 1926 were as shown in the following table. No statistics are available as to
the number of persons employed on arable land alone.

Year.
Arable Land.
Total Crops and Permanent Grass.
Total Number of Regular and Casual Male Workers Employed.



Acres.
Acres.
No.


1920
1,883,880
2,589,027
*


1921
1,864,152
2,562,466
98,673


1922
1,849,233
2,545,953
*


1923
1,836,152
2,533,273
91,463


1924
1,814,693
2,524,542
94,941


1925
1,791,961
2,504,235
95,300


1926
1,771,693
2,495,470
96,293


* Returns of the number of workers were not collected in these years.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the great prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in Holland, he is taking steps to ensure that potatoes imported from that country do not bring any germs over with them?

Mr. GUINNESS: Inquiries which have been made from time to time into the origin of the various outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country have furnished no evidence that imported potatoes have been the source of infection in any outbreak. The importations are being carefully watched, but I have no justification for prohibiting the entry of potatoes from Holland on this account.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will continue the embargo on foreign carcases in view of the increase of foot-and-mouth disease on the Continent?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, Sir. I do not contemplate the withdrawal of the embargo on the importation of fresh carcases, while foot-and-mouth disease remains prevalent on the Continent.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that under Section 9 of the Guardianship of Infants Act and the Infants Act, 1886, the: married mother of a child is at a disadvantage compared with the unmarried mother, in that the married mother can only take proceedings in the district in which the father resides, he will consider the introduction of a Bill to remove this disability?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, as amended by the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, to which Acts the hon. Member appears to refer, does not differentiate, as regards the venue, between the married and the unmarried mother.

INTERNATIONAL AERO EXHIBITION, PRAGUE.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to ensure the adequate exhibition of British aeroplanes and accessories, etc., at the International Aero Exhibition at Prague next June; how many British firms are exhibiting; and whether a representative of the Air Ministry is visiting, or has visited, Prague with a view to arranging for the exhibition of British machines and the assistance of British companies in so doing?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am sorry to say that there will be no British aircraft exhibit at Prague. The aircraft industry has definitely decided not to take part in the exhibition, and I am afraid that to arrange for participation at Government expense would be out of the question in the present financial stringency.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (FLYING HOURS).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, with a view to throwing light on the causes of accidents, he will ascertain and publish the average number of hours flown per day by British Air Force pilots in the six summer months and the six winter months, respectively, in the years 1920, 1923, 1925 and 1926?

Sir P. SASSOON: For the reasons to which reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech on the 10th March, it would not be in the public interest to publish the figures for which the hon. and gallant Member asks. I can, however, assure him that all statistics which bear directly or indirectly on the causes of accidents are regularly collated, analysed and fully considered at the Air Ministry.

PALESTINE (RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any Report on railway development and extension in Palestine; when the deviation of the main line through Tel Aviv to Haifa will be put in hand; and whether the central station for Tel Aviv-Jaffa will be in Tel Aviv, as recommended, or in Jaffa?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have received the Report of the railway expert who visited Palestine in 1925, and that Report has been the subject of careful consideration by the High Commissioner and myself. Funds to meet the cost of diverting the main railway line through Tel Aviv are not at present available, and the immediate needs of that town for improved communications are being met by the construction of a metalled road from Jaffa to Petah Tikvah passing through Tel Aviv. Steps are being taken to reserve a suitable site for the construction of a Tel Aviv-Jaffa railway station when funds to meet the cost of the diversion become available. The site selected lies in the general town planning area of Jaffa and will be included in a special development scheme for Tel Aviv.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was not provision made in the loan for sums for this railway diversion?

Mr. AMERY: I hope that sums from the loan may become available, but there are more important first claims on the loan.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the site of the railway station as recommended by the Report, or has it been changed?

Mr. AMERY: I could not say exactly.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SITUATION IN SHANGHAI.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the military situation in the neighbourhood of Shanghai?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Locker-Lampson): I understand the Prime Minister is going to make a statement on this subject which covers the hon. Member's question, and perhaps he will wait for it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. There have been frequent occasions recently on which hon. Members have put down questions which have been ignored on the pretext that later, by pre-arrangement, other questions will be put. I desire to submit that hon. Members in their representative capacity here have the same rights and there ought to be some protection for them to put their questions.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps I ought to explain that this statement is rather a long one, and it covers, among other things, the whole of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.

Captain GARRO-JONES: What I desire to ask you, Sir, is whether there is any protection you can give us from this growing practice of ignoring a question put by a private Member in order that it might be replied to by pre-arrangement with a Member of the Front Bench?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is a very old custom of the House that a question of unusual magnitude should be taken at the end of questions in reply to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in regard to the situation in Shanghai?

The PRIME MINISTER: At 6 p.m. last night there were reported to be 23,000 Nationalist troops in the area immediately south of the French Settlement, but the number is probably exaggerated. Their advance had been facilitated by the fact that the Northern Commander, General Pi Shu-chen, made terms with the Nationalists and was appointed commander of the 41st Army.
A general strike for three days has been declared in celebration of the Nationalist victory. It is stated that this strike is not anti-foreign; it includes public utility workers.
Chinese police stations outside the Settlements have been taken over and their arms seized by agitators, who are creating disorder in the Settlement borders. Yesterday afternoon a party of Punjabis proceeding in motor lorries to their posts was attacked by gunmen; one sepoy was killed and one seriously injured, but the assailants escaped. The particular district involved has now been occupied by Japanese marines.
A state of emergency has been declared by the municipal council, and the naval and military fences allotted for internal security purposes have taken up their stations; the situation is well in hand.
At the request of the municipal council armed guards of the national forces concerned are being provided for foreign properties on municipal roads beyond the cordon. There are three such Japanese posts in this district and six British. The Royal Marines have landed at Pootung, the riverside area opposite Shanghai, to protect British lives and property there.
The Northern forces are reported to be evacuating Soochow; and it is stated that Chang Tsung-chang is preparing to defend Nanking strongly.

Mr. MacDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the place where the Punjabis were attacked was inside the concession or outside the concession?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that it was inside the cordon but outside the international settlement.

Sir CLEMENT KFNLOCH-COOKE: Can the Prime Minister give the House any information in regard to the 17 casualties which occurred to British people?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the Prime Minister give us any information as to firing by a British cruiser?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. We have no confirmation of that at all.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is there any form of diplomatic contact with the Cantonese forces, and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman make an attempt to establish that contact?

The PRIME MINISTER: Our Consul-General at Shanghai is in constant touch.

Lieut.-Colonel JOHN WARD: Has our representative, who is likely to get into touch with either of the sides to the dispute in China, plenty of funds at his disposal? That is the best way of settling any difficulty there.

Mr. RILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any casualties have occurred to British inside the international settlement?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. We have no information on that point yet.

Major CRAWFURD: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether there has been any threats to the civil population arising out of the situation in Shanghai?

The PRIME MINISTER: It entirely depends upon what the hon. Member means by a threat. He must remember that the settlement is seething with mobs which may get out of hand at any time.

Mr. BECKETT: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement which appeared in the "Morning Post" that the Cantonese forces were the only forces that could not be bought in China?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I have seen no statement in the Press this morning.

Captain GARRO-JONES: When the Prime Minister says that our Consul-General is in constant touch with the Cantonese, will he say with whom our Consul-General is in touch?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member must realise that in such a kaleidoscopic situation you have to get into touch with whomsoever you can.

Captain GARRO-JONES: When the right hon. Gentleman says that our Consul-General is in constant touch, I want to know with which particular leader or person he is in contact. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot say with whom we are in touch, what foundation has he for his statement that we are in diplomatic touch with the forces?

TRADE WITH SHANGHAI.

Major CRAWFURD: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the trade with Shanghai of Great Britain and each of the principal foreign countries in the latest year for which the figures are available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer includes a table of figures, and the hon. Member will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following statement shows the gross value of the foreign trade of Shanghai during the year 1925, the latest year for which such information has been received:—


Country.
Chinese Currency Million
British Equivalent Thousand



Haikwan Tales.
£


Great Britain
99.26
17,320


Hong Kong
39.22
6,840


Other British countries
79.58
13,890


Total British Empire
218.06
38,050


United States
176.96
30,880


Japan (including Formosa and Korea)
150.89
26,330


France
68.44
11,940


Netherlands
10.86
1,890


Dutch East Indies
32.72
5,710


Germany
26.53
4,630


Italy
10.11
1,760


Other countries
43.50
7,590


Total
738.07
128,780

By "gross value of the foreign trade" is meant the sum of foreign goods imported from places outside China, and of Chinese produce (whether of local or other Chinese origin) exported to places outside China.

A distinction between imports and exports in the trade of the port of Shanghai with individual countries is not made in the original returns.

In converting Chinese currency to its British equivalent the Haikwan Tael has been taken as 3s. 5⅞d., the average sight exchange on London during 1925, as calculated by the Chinese Maritime Customs.

SALT GABELLE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any official information with regard to the present position of the salt gabelle which is the security
for several Chinese loans; and what sources are open at the moment for revenue?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given in this House on 12th July of last year, since when there has been no substantial change in the position as regards the salt gabelle. Revenue is being remitted from Shansi, Tientsin and Shantung.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the security as sound as it was in July last year?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Even in July of last year the whole of the machinery was very much disorganised owing to the civil war.

EX-SERVICE MEN (POOR RELIEF).

Mr. LANSBURY: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Poplar Board of Guardians has still on its relief list thousands of disabled and able-bodied ex-service men and their dependents for whom no employment can be found; and whether, in view of the burden thrown upon the local rates, he is now in a position to say what action he proposes to take to relieve Poplar and other unions suffering similar disabilities from these heavy financial burdens?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The position of what are known as the necessitous areas has been the subject of repeated discussion in this House, and I can add nothing to the statements made on behalf of the Government in those discussions. With regard to local rates in Poplar, I observe that during the last 12 monthly period for which return have been made, upwards of £500,000, equivalent to a rate of over 10s. in the £, was paid out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, to which all the Metropolitan Boroughs contribute, in aid of Poplar rates.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question I asked had reference not to London but to the whole country. Do not the Government think it very nearly time, after nearly 10 years have passed since the Armistice, that some effort was made to pay the debt of
honour the nation owes to these men, instead of leaving them to the mercy of the Poor Law?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that owing to the spontaneous effort of the left wing of the Labour party in continuing the strike as they did, they have made work even more difficult for these heroes?

HOUSING (STATISTICS).

Mr. LUMLEY: 75.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses purchased under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act for the years 1925 and 1926, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: The numbers of houses in respect of which local authorities made advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts were 13,603 in 1925 and 18,238 in 1926.

Mr. LUMLEY: 76.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses purchased under Section 92 (1) (b) of the Housing Act, 1925, for the years 1925 and 1926, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: The numbers of houses in respect of which local authorities undertook to guarantee the repayment of advances by building, etc. societies under Section 92 (1) (b) of the Housing Act, 1925, were l,559 in 1925 and 3,476 in 1926. Local authorities also made advances under Section 92 (1) (a) of the Act in respect of 9,533 houses in 1925 and 10,043 in 1926.

CASUAL VAGRANTS (SCABIES).

Major CRAWFURD: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, at a recent mooting of the National Association of Vagrancy Committees, complaint was made that casual vagrants suffering from scabies were passed on from casual ward to casual ward, thereby spreading the disease; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: This complaint has not previously been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice, but he will make inquiries. I may say that the attention of guardians has from time to time been drawn to this matter by Circular and otherwise. The Regulations applicable to casual wards contain provisions enabling
guardians to detect and deal with such cases and the guardians also have powers of detention.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXEMPTED INDUSTRIES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 78.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the number of persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act who were not insured against unemployment on the ground that they were engaged in exempted industries at the end of 1920 and at the end of 1926, or at any earlier date to which the latest available figures apply?

Mr. BETTERTON: The numbers of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme are ascertained with reference to the month of July in each year. In July, 1921, and in July, 1926, they were approximately 11,081,000 and 11,774,000 for Great Britain. As explained to my hon. Friend in reply to a similar question in April last, the number of persons insured under the Health Insurance Scheme is a matter for the Ministry of Health.

YOUNG PERSONS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 79.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there are any statistics compiled showing the number of young people under 16 years of age who are unemployed; and, if so, whether he will arrange to publish such statistics periodically in the "Labour Gazette"?

Mr. BETTERTON: No complete statistics of this kind are available.

JUVENILE TRAINING CENTRES (EAST LONDON).

Mr. LANSBURY: 80.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to establish any day training centres in East London for the purpose of training young men and women at present unemployed?

Mr. BETTERTON: There is at present a Juvenile Unemployment Centre in Poplar for unemployed boys and girls from 14–18 years of age. I am prepared to consider any proposals which the London County Council may make for additional centres of this kind in East London.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

AGRICULTURE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the position of agriculture, and move a Resolution.

OWNERSHIP.

Sir JOHN GANZ0NI: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the persistent objection of the Socialist party to Ownership, and move a Resolution.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. BARNES: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the neglect of the Government to deal with the problem of unemployment, and move a Resolution.

PUNISHMENT OF CRIME.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will draw attention to the Punishment of Crime, and move a Resolution.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (INDIAN NAVY) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee,) to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Police (Appeals) Bill): the Lord Advocate, Mr. Barr, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Dugald Cowan, Major Elliot, Lord Erskine, Commander Fan-shawe, Mr. Gardner, Captain Hacking, Mr. Hayes, Secretary Sir William Joyn-son-Hicks, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ramsden, Sir James Remnant, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Diseases of Animals Bill [Lords]): Mr. Barnes, Mr. Buxton, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Everard, Mr. Guinness, Captain D'Arcy Hall, Mr. Lamb, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Sir Douglas Newton, and Mr. Paling.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further re-ported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Royal Naval Reserve Bill): Mr. Ammon, Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Mr. Bridge-man, Sir Herbert Cayzer, Viscount Elveden, Lieut.-Colonel Headlam, Mr. March, Mr. Benjamin Smith, Commander Charles Williams, and Mr. Womersley.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [16th March], "That the Bill be now load a Second time."

Which Amendment was: To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House, whilst welcoming proposals to restrict blind booking of cinematograph films, thus providing a fair field for British producers, cannot assent to the Second Heading of a Bill which compels British traders to supply goods irrespective of their comparative merits and the demands of their customers."—[Mr. Ramsay Mac-Donald.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have never heard in the House of Commons a more extraordinary speech from a Minister than the speech with which the President of the Board of Trade moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I have taken the trouble to measure the linage of the report of that speech, and I find that, apart from his recital of the Clauses of the Bill, two-thirds of the speech had no relevance whatever to the provisions of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade seemed to be quite ignorant of the fact that there are 30,000,000 people in this country who get their entertainment each week by attending the cinema productions. A good part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was devoted to a matter upon which, I think, there is general agreement in the House, and that is the importance of doing something, if possible, to prevent the exhibition of objectionable or obscene films. But the Bill makes no provision whatever for dealing with that matter. I think there will be agreement also that this is not a matter that can be dealt with by national action alone. If anything is to be done in regard to this subject, there is only one machinery by which it can be done, and that is by some international arrangement, perhaps initiated by the League of Nations. The other part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was devoted to dealing with this Bill
purely as an instrument for advertising British trade. We all know the source of origin of this Measure. It did not need the disclosures which have been made by one of the leading newspapers this morning to let us know that the President of the Board of Trade is, in this matter, as in many others, simply a tool in the hands of the Federation of British Industries.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman unnecessarily, but I must interrupt him on this occasion and say that there is no truth whatever in that allegation. This Bill is founded upon the recommendations of the Imperial Conference.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The facts are well within the knowledge of every Member of the House. Long before the Imperial Conference passed the Resolution to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the Federation of British Industries were very active in this matter and the Bill, as a matter of fact, does nothing to carry out the recommendations of the Imperial Conference.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: What about being a "tool?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the hon. Member below the Gangway considers that his refined senses are hurt by that word, I will substitute the word "instrument." Hon. Members opposite know quite well that the Federation of British Industries have written to some hon. Members of this House, and have been taking for a long time a keen interest in this matter. Hon. Members will search in vain through the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for any reference to the interests of the exhibitors or the patrons of the cinema. As a matter of fact, this Bill is part of the ridiculous campaign for stimulating the buying of British goods by artificial means. The declared purpose of the Bill, as stated by the President of the Board of Trade, is to make the cinema a commercial medium for boosting British goods, to make the cinema, the purpose of which is to provide entertainment for the people, advertise British goods which cannot sell on their own merits. There will be no need for such advertisement if British goods were such' as would recommend
themselves by their own merits. Although that was the declared purpose of the Bill, by some peculiar inconsistency the most effective, the most obvious and most permanent means by which the cinemas might be used for trade advertisement are not to be used at all. Trade may be advertised, the scientific processes may be advertised and exhibited on the screen.
4.0 p.m.
These films may be British produced, but they are not to count in the quota of British films. The right hon. Gentleman gave a pathetic story of the failure of the British film-producing industry to maintain and extend its pre-War time dimensions. At that time, if I remember aright, something like 40 per cent. of the films that were shown in this country were British produced. At the present time the percentage is something like 4 per cent. To be precise, there were last year about 760 films, and of these only 28 were British. The rest with the exception, I think, of between 60 and 70, were American. There are many things which explain the pre-eminence of America in the film world. America has gone into this business with the enterprise and with the business acumen which is characteristic of the American people. She has spared no expense. She has not had in her business arrangements a clause or condition that no foreign aid shall be employed. She has bought talent wherever the best talent can be found. It is true that America has natural facilities for producing films which this country cannot, and never will, possess. I am told that Sweden is now producing some of the finest films. Sweden, probably, has an advantage over this country in atmospheric conditions. But one of the reasons why America has obtained such supremacy in the film world is because of the business enterprise to which I have already referred, aided by unrivalled climatic conditions.
May I impress this fact upon hon. Members opposite? America has made the British film industry. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that America has made the cinema industry in this country. If it were not for the supply of American films, there would be practically no cinemas in this country. I
understand there is something like £50,000,000 of capital employed in the cinema trade in this country. Thousands of people, probably tens of thousands, are employed in the Industry. It brings millions of revenue a year into the British Exchequer, and all that is due to the fact that America is able to provide a sufficient number of films for exhibition. I hope, therefore, there will be nothing in the way of reprisals, although it is part of the gospel of Protectionists and Tariff Reformers that there should be reprisals in the matter of tariffs. It would be a lamentable thing for the cinema industry of this country if America were to stop the supply of films to this country. She would not suffer so much, because she has her own huge population to supply. She has the vast market of the East, an expanding market, for cinematograph exhibitions.
This Bill proposes to deal with three things, each, I suppose, aimed at stimulating the production of British films. It deals with what is called blind booking, block booking and advance booking. I do not profess to be able to understand clearly the distinction between those three things. There seems to me to be a good deal of confusion in the definition of blind booking, block booking and advance booking. They seem to me to dovetail into each other. But, surely, a proposal of this sort introduces an innovation into English trade. I have never heard before proposed such an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of people engaged in industry, to prevent their conducting their arrangements in a way which they believe conduces to their advantage. Why blind booking, block booking, advance booking is the ordinary routine of everyday trade. Business could not get. on without it. Certainly, I myself have blindly booked numerous contracts. A publisher writes to me and says, "Will you write a book?", giving me the title, and nothing more. We sign the contract. There is nothing said as to the way in which I should treat the subject. The same in regard to newspapers and all other matters. An hon. Member opposite goes to some artist and asks him to paint a portrait of his wife. He undertakes to paint the portrait. It is a blind booking. It is the common practice in all
trades. This, I say, is a most unwarrantable interference with that freedom. It is quite true that at one time the exhibitors were nearly unanimously in favour of the abolition of what is called blind booking, But second thoughts are often best, and now you can get nothing like unanimity, and I doubt if you could get a majority, in favour of this Bill among cinematograph exhibitors engaged in what are called blind bookings and advance bookings.
From the point of view of the Government, the most important provision in this Bill is that which deals with the quota, and I declare this introduces a hitherto unthought-of restriction and limitation of trade. All hon. Members of the House have no doubt received a circular, which has been issued by the Manchester Cinematograph Exhibitors' Society. This circular states the case against this Bill, and if we followed in this House the practice which, I understand, there is in the Congress of the United States of America, of putting in printed matter, and asking that it should be recorded as the hon. Member's speech, I should be perfectly satisfied to put in this memorandum as my indictment of the Bill. May I, however, be permitted to read one or two sentences, because they express far more powerfully than I can the objections to this Bill. This point has been made before, and it has been ridiculed by the President of the Board of Trade. They say:
The proposal with respect to British films could in its absurdity be equalled only by a measure to compel fruiterers to sell a percentage of home-grown oranges or tobacconists to sell a percentage of homegrown tobacco.
The right hon. Gentleman has described that as being absurd. I should have thought the fact that it was absurd would have met with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, because the more absurd this Bill is, the more it appears to recommend itself to him. Make no mistake about it! If the President of the Board of Trade could have his way, he would impose a quota restriction upon every trade in the country. He would compel every greengrocer to sell a certain proportion of British fruit. He would impose upon all the dry goods stores of the country an obligation to have at least 25 per cent. of British goods.
He would go much further than that, and say not more than 25 per cent. of foreign manufactured articles. This is only the first step. It is ridiculous legislation, and if the House of Commons endorses such a proposal as this, it will be an encouragement to the President of the Board of Trade and other Protectionists to carry the restriction still further.
The first people who have to be considered in this matter are the people who attend cinemas, and find the money for the carrying on of the industry. Neither they nor the exhibitors, however, receive the least consideration in this matter. The object of an exhibitor is to meet the requirements of his patrons. His industry is in a very different position from most other trades. People must go to a grocer's shop. They may have a choice of grocers' shops, but they must buy groceries. It is not so in regard to the cinema. People can either go or stay away, and they stay away unless the programme is satisfactory. Now these people, I repeat, receive no consideration whatever. It is proposed, by an ascending scale, to compel the exhibitors of pictures ultimately to show 25 per cent. British films. The Federation of British Industries want, I believe, the quota to begin at 12½ per cent. It will soon get to that.
Let us see what is to be the effect of this upon the picture exhibition. Up to 27th July of this year there will be only 40 British films available. There are about 800 films required in order to keep the industry going. Therefore at the present time there is only 4 per cent. of British films. It is going to rise by 2½ per cent. per year. That means 20 new films every year. It is eight years since the close of the War, and the British producers in those eight years, notwithstanding their pre-War experience, are able to produce an output of only 40 films a year. 2½ per cent. means 20 additional films for each year. At the end of next year the minimum requirement will be 60 films, and ultimately in eight years' time 200 films. I want to put this question seriously to hon. Members opposite: Is there the least likelihood that by the end of next year there will be 60 British films of a fairly good class available? Anyone with experience knows that there can be only one answer to that question. There cannot be 60
good films available, much leas can there be 200 good British films at the end of eight years. Therefore, what is going to happen? Everyone knows what is going to happen. British films will be produced; I do not doubt it. I believe that the films will be produced because, seeing the opportunity of making money the same incompetent people who have either reduced or kept the British film industry in its present parlous condition, will rush in and they will produce the films. They may be good, but they will mostly be bad and indifferent.
What is the position of the exhibitor? He must take the film. This is the most serious effect which will follow from the application of this quota. In order to meet the quota the first two years there must be an expansion of the British industry by 50 per cent. And the film is not going into a competitive market; it is going into a guaranteed market. Every producer knows that, whatever may be the quality of the film, it will have to be taken. What is the effect of that on the exhibitor? He is bound to take these films, whether they be bad, indifferent, or objectionable. The effect of a bad film on people who visit cinemas is much more lasting than the effect of a good film. When they have seen a bad British film they will naturally say, "We will not go to that place again." But they will find the same experience, under this quota system, wherever they go. As I say, the British films have a guaranteed market. That means much more. It means that the producers can get what price they care to charge, and the producers who are supporting this Bill realise that quite well. There never was such an opportunity presented to incompetents to make fortunes as is given by the quota provisions of this Bill. Many of the cinemas in this country at the present time are having great difficulty in making a living.
It may be that the industry, as far as numbers of cinemas are concerned, has been overdone; it may be that there are too many of them. I do not know. But I do know that many of them are working on a very small margin of profit. If for one quarter of the films that they exhibit they have to pay twice, thrice and even five times more than they previously paid, then there is nothing but ruin in
store for them. There is no assurance whatever, there is no guarantee under this Bill, of the quality of the British films which the exhibitors will be bound to take. On the contrary, this ascending scale of the quota is altogether irrespective of the quality of the films. There is no provision in the Bill to say that the films must pass a certain test of excellence. There is much, I think, to be said for—shall I say a censorship in this matter?—or at any rate some Board which will pass these films, and no film ought to be included in the quota unless it represents a certain standard.
I repeat it because it is so important, that as the Bill stands the exhibitors will be compelled to take any rubbish that the producers and the renters care to impose upon them. I cannot see the end of the possibilities. The guaranteed market must, with the ascending quota, absorb any increase in the production of British films. Therefore, there is not going to be in the trade any competition which might otherwise have the effect of pulling down prices. The party opposite is the party of private enterprise. It is the party that believes in competition. It believes that competition is the stimulus that is necessary for expanding trade. Here they are taking away the stimulus of competition. Here is a reflection upon the position that they invariably take up when they are attacking us who advocate and profess Socialist principles.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Are we not compelled to take any rubbish that comes from abroad?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Member has evidently quite misunderstood the point that I have tried to impress upon the minds of hon. Members opposite. We have no objection to, and even would welcome, anything which could be done to stimulate the British film industry, with full regard of all the interests that are involved. We would prefer that British films should be presented instead of American or foreign films. But the matter is in the hands of the industry itself. Let it set its own house in order. Let it apply brains and business ability to the problem, and then, in spite of the national advantages which America possesses, there would soon be, under the influence of competition, a
reasonable proportion of British films. This is going to be a most serious thing for the exhibitor and particularly the small exhibitor. I do not think that the super-cinemas will suffer very much, because they can afford to pay big sums. They can run a film, like several big films which are running and have been running in London for some time past—they can afford to run it for weeks and weeks and even months. It is not so with the cinema in the country villages and the small towns. They cannot run a picture for more than about three nights. Therefore they will be particularly hit by this proposed quota arrangement.
There is another important point, as showing how the exhibitors will be very severely hit indeed. All hon. Members are. familiar with towns in the country where in the principal street you have two or three or even four cinemas almost next door to each other. There is only a limited number of British films. There may be 60 British films during the first year of the operating of the quota under this Bill. All the cinemas will have to take them. One of the four cinemas in a town, being very anxious to get the first run of a picture, will buy it at a very big price. The other cinemas, in order to make up their quota, will be obliged later to take that and other pictures which have already been shown in the town. What is to be the effect of that? It will simply be disastrous. Of course, this is nothing new to the right hon. Gentleman, because the whole of his policy since he went to the Board of Trade appears to have been directed to devising means of ruining any industry that he can reach, but I can imagine nothing more calculated than the proposals of this Bill to be disastrous to the industry.
Just a word or two about the definition of a British film. 75 per cent. of the cost will have to go to the payment of British labour, but there is nothing in the Bill which is going to guarantee that the film will be really made by British labour and will represent British ideas. A foreign star may be engaged at a salary which will be larger than all the other costs of production. 25 per cent. of the other expenses may be paid to foreigners. A person must be domiciled in this country. I am no lawyer, but I believe that there is in law nothing
which is more difficult for the lawyers to decide than the question of domicile. I understand that "domiciled" in the Bill does not mean naturalised, and, therefore, you may have any number of foreigners engaged in the production of these so-called British films. They may give, not a British atmosphere to the Bill, but the atmosphere of the country with which they are better acquainted, and then, after the film has been produced by a foreigner domiciled in this country, and a great part of the cost has gone to pay for foreign artists and skill, it will be presented to the British public as a British film. The cinema may not be quite perfect as an elevating institution, from the point of view of high art—I think it will get better by and by—but I can imagine nothing which is more likely to degrade the artistic character of the cinema than such provisions as are proposed in this Bill. The one thing above all else, if it has to be propaganda at all, that the cinema ought to do is to give the international outlook, the international point of view, but instead of doing that, the President of the Board of Trade is going to degrade it to be a mere bagman of British industry. I suppose this Bill will pass, for hon. Members opposite will do as they have done on so many occasions during the last two years—they will support the Government in a policy of which they heartily disapprove. I cannot believe that there is an hon. Member on that side of the House who, if left free, if this were not a party question, would not treat this Bill with the derision that it deserves. But, as I say, the Bill will pass, and I am quite certain that when it is operating we shall find that all the disastrous consequences which we, from this side of the House, have stated as certain to happen will be realised, to the great disadvantage of the industry as a whole.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It is always a singularly stimulating thing for us on these benches to hear a great Socialist pleading the cause of vested interests, but I doubt very much really if my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is a Socialist. He seems to me to be a great Liberal who wants things left alone. He likes the freedom of the individual untouched. I was hoping to hear from him
that this industry, among others, should be nationalised, but according to him here' is one industry which he would leave entirely alone. All others we are to control by the State. I must say that X had a certain feeling of sympathy with him at the beginning, as I thought he had a very grave suspicion of this Bill because it was connected with the Federation of British Industries. With that I cordially agree, but it may very well occur that the Federation is occasionally right, as the Trade Union Council may be occasionally right. They do sometimes hit on something good, and one must not prejudice one's whole outlook because the Federation of British Industries happens to agree with this particular Bill. My right hon. Friend did remark on a reference that was made in a paper this morning in regard to the prerogative of Mr. Speaker. I want to assure you, Sir, that we know very well that we can rely on your independence, and we know also that the House would protect you in any way in which it might be necessary if any improper action were being taken to interfere with your prerogative.
A week ago we had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day), who justified his intervention in the Debate on the ground of his long connection with the industry. If I may say so, he somewhat exceeded his quota, because he spoke for an hour and a quarter, but after that I feel that I must in some way justify my intervention in this Debate, and I do so on these grounds. I never have been, and never will be, I suppose, interested in the cinema industry, but I happen to be a photographer. All my life I have been a photographer in various branches of that particular science, and when cinema photography started, I started, naturally, taking photographs in that peculiar way. Although it was early days, I think I am one of the few people who can show my children at every age from I on to 16. It is not a pastime that I recommend everyone to go in for, because it costs about 4½d. a second to show it on the film. But all my life I have butted-in to the industry because of that, and sometimes a looker-on knows a good deal of what is going on in a particular industry, although he
may not be actually interested in it. I am going to come back to that, because I claim to know just a little about Wardour Street as a looker-on.
If I may pass to rather a broader point of view, there have been three very great propaganda media introduced into the world. The first, and undoubtedly the greatest, was the introduction of the letter press. Two of these propaganda media have been due to the sense of the ear, and one has been due to the sense of the eye. The introduction of books, although looking as if it was due to the sense of the eye, was really due to the ear, because we transcribe in our minds what we see on paper into sound, and thence into thoughts. That was the great advantage that Western civilisation brought about as compared with Eastern civilisation. Eastern civilisation tried to make pictures of thoughts, but Western civilisation tried to make pictures of sounds, and the advance due to that particular roundabout method introduced by the West advanced their civilisation over that of the East. Why I want to refer to that is that, when that spread, it only first of all touched the scholar, and as education expanded it slowly got into a bigger field of people, and there was a natural protection due to language. The other form of propaganda is broadcasting. There, again, it started on quite a high scientific level. Only people who could manipulate complicated electrical apparatus first of all heard the voice through ether. Very early, as the thing got more popular, the Government quickly realised that here was such a state of affairs that some form of control would be wanted. There, again, we had the power of language to stop interference from too much propaganda from any foreign country, and from America, perhaps, distance at present is a bar to that. But very early, as I say, the Government thought it right that broadcasting should be controlled.
How did the cinema start? That is really the point that I am dealing with in mentioning these two other things. The cinema started as a conjuring trick. It started as a showman's stunt. Those people who can remember the start of the cinematograph know that it was absolutely a bang-the-drum, walk-up business, and in this country it has never got out of those people's hands. That has really
been the curse of fete cinema in this country. We might just as well have handed over broadcasting to Barnum and Bailey as to have done what we have done in leaving the cinema industry entirely alone in this country until now. I am not saying anything against showmen as showmen. We all know that all the greatest men in the world have showmen's qualities. There are the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), for instance, and our own Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have all got strong showmen's characteristics. It is the same with great authors like Bernard Shaw and great journalists like Lord Beaverbrook; they have all got strong showmen's characteristics. The difference, perhaps, between Bernard Shaw and Lord Beaverbrook is that one is a conscious humourist and the other is an unconscious humourist. But all these people are great citizens, and we should be very much at a loss without them. What I want to come back to is the fact that the actual crowd of people in Wardour Street, the people who really we relied upon to start the cinema industry in this country, were showmen, and they remain showmen to-day. It has been stated as an abjection to this Bill that there are companies waiting to form to start taking English pictures. I am very pleased to hear it. The only hope of developing it as a national industry is to get it out of the present hands into new hands, and I welcome very much the fact that there is going to he a start in that direction.
I have referred to what I think is one of the troubles that got the industry into the wrong hands, and there is this other trouble, that the machinery of booking makes it extremely difficult, even if you have got a good English film, to get it properly passed on. The Bill deals with that, and I think, from that point of view, it is an improvement. One word on the American film. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude for the quality of the films which come from America. After all, the greatest films which we have seen have been produced in America, but they have developed along a line, I think, that we would expect America to produce, the line of great mechanical perfection, of great spectacles, and of great, grandiose effects, and I think we must appreciate the fact that the American film has never
exploited the propaganda position as it could have done if it had meant to. But we have to remember this, that the film produced in America is really produced for America and for nobody else. What comes to this country is practically what one would call dumped goods. Whatever they can get extra for sending it to England is all to their profit, and I think I can prove my point there. I do not know if hon. Members saw "The Great Parade," but there was a great war picture in which not one single mention was made of the English Army. Nobody, if they had been really concerned to sell that film in England, would have designed it like that, showing that they are only thinking of America and not of anybody else.
I think, as a matter of fact, the stunt side of the American films is very much overdone. I think the British public are getting tired of stunts; it is just like reading articles into which you introduce an acrostic or a cross-word puzzle on every other page. One cannot go on with it; one gets tired. They have in some cases exploited the national spirit in a film like "The Birth of a Nation." I do not know whether I really am convinced that the future of the film lies with America. It is all very well to criticise them, but we have to ask ourselves what we have done over here. We have done precious little. After all, we have got a country which has produced the greatest history in the world, even within .300 yards of this spot. Have we ever seen a film which has shown the struggle for liberty which has gone on in this country? Has it ever gone round the world to show what sort of people we are? Do we ever see a film showing the real sweetness of the English character? Never. We can never get tin's sort of film produced to show England at its best, and why not? Because the whole control of the producing of films in this country is in hands which never will produce that kind of film.
Now about the quota. The quota is regarded by hon. Members opposite as some very serious interruption in private business. I agree that when you have a very serious condition you want a serious remedy. Here is a scheme which says to English producers, "You are going to be assured a very small corner of a programme throughout the week,"
and, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade says, it is the purpose of the quota to keep competition for inclusion in that quota very keen. After all, here we are, like a young boxer, trying to take on the championship of the world. We cannot rush straight into the ring; we have to have our own scraps first. The only way to tune up our British industry is, first of all, to get new blood into it, and, secondly, to make them fight for their share of the small quota, and I believe that after a few years English genius and English films will be able to take on any others in the world without falling back on the mechanism of the quota.
My right hon. Friend is going to have a good deal of difficulty because of the opposition of vested interests, and I do hope that he will not pay too much attention to the exhibitors end, because there are three things here. There are the producer, the renter, and the exhibitor, and in England the exhibitor is far and away the richest. All the money has gone into the exhibitors' hands. If that money had gone into production, there would be no film difficulty to-day. It is because it has gone into those hands that the difficulty has arisen. If I might give a maxim for the President of the Board of Trade, it would be, "Look after production, and the films will look after themselves." It is because we have neglected that side of the industry that we are in the parlous condition that we are in to-day. In conclusion, let me again tell my right hon. Friend that we on these benches, always accused as we are of looking after vested interests, are, as it seems to me, the only party that ever takes them on. The whole of last year I was up against one of the strongest vested interests in this country, and I know what it means. I hope my right hon. Friend knows what it means. He is going to have a very-rocky time in Committee. If I have been able to support him on the Second Beading, I only hope that his reward to me will be to see that I am not on the Committee upstairs.

Mr. MORRIS: This Bill rather reminds one of the story of a clock of which the owner once remarked that when he saw the hands pointing to twelve and heard it striking two he
knew it was twenty minutes to seven. So this Bill, pointing as it does to restrictions on advance-booking and blind-booking and sounding an alarm about a quota, tells one that the time has come to prohibit any further advertisements of American manners and styles. The President of the Board of Trade, in introducing the Measure, did not describe it as a good Bill; all he claimed for it was that it was the only attempt made to revive the British film industry, and he has not carried the whole of his supporters with him. I find that an evening newspaper, which ordinarily supports the Government, describes the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as being a very pathetic argument, and it goes on to describe the Bill in these terms:
The Film Quota Bill illustrates very exactly the inconveniences likely to arise from Governments, which unable to think of anything to do or else unwilling to do important things that they ought to do. are nevertheless determined to do something.
The President of the Board of Trade has objected to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) describing him as the tool of the Federation of British Industry, but he has brought in his Bill apparently as the only means of protecting the industry at all. He knows perfectly well that he is precluded from protecting the film industry by placing a tax on foreign films owing to certain undertakings and certain parts of Commercial Treaties, and therefore he has adopted the only other course open to him.
We have heard a good deal about the necessity of protecting this industry in the interests of British patriotism. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) referred to the advertisements given to American manners and styles. It is true that the American public have had a great advertisement through the film industry, but it is not only a perverse public in this country or the unpatriotic exhibitor who is responsible for the present state of the film industry in this country. Those in high positions, those in responsible official positions, in this country, who are usually regarded as the custodians of British patriotism, have also been responsible. An American film artist comes over here with his circus horse, and, as we have
witnessed during the last few weeks, the Mayor at Southampton goes to receive him, and, when that circus rider comes to London, the Lord Mayor of London gives him, if not an official, a semiofficial reception. When that same man takes his circus horse across the Straits to France, the only notice that is taken of him is to tell him that he must not obstruct the traffic. Yet the President of the Board of Trade finds that the only remedy is to produce a Bill of this description to support the British film industry.
It is a very remarkable Bill. It creates 13 new offences—that is a rather remarkable figure—and it imposes 13 new penalties. It is a little important to notice how they are going to operate. A penalty is of itself an evil thing, but when it operates in an uncertain way it is a double evil. I turn to Clause 10, and I find that if an applicant, who has registered his film, desires substantially to alter the length of the film he must notify the Board of Trade of that change, whether a film is substantially altered or not can only be determined, according to Sub-section (2), by the Board of Trade itself. The result will be that the applicant will not know. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate to him upon what lines the Board of Trade are going to find whether a film has been substantially altered or not. There is nothing to indicate whether that alteration should be notified to them, and he will not know whether he is liable to a prosecution at the instigation of the Board of Trade at any time. Surely, when you are creating a new offence and imposing a substantial penalty—a fine not exceeding £20—there should be an indication what the Board of Trade mean by a substantial alteration in the film.
Clause 19 creates another offence. The exhibitor has to perform various calculations. He has to work out a sum by way of measurement, multiplication, addition, and proportion, and, if he gets his sum wrong, then he is liable to a prosecution unless he pan obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade. The certificate is to be set out in the manner hereinafter mentioned. First, he has the opportunity of proving his case before the Board of Trade, and, secondly. if he does not get the certificate, he has an
opportunity in a Court of Law. If he can show that he has worked out the sum under conditions over which he has no control, he may be acquitted. I turn to Clause 22 to find out what is the certificate that is hereinafter mentioned, and the certificate hereinafter mentioned, to my astonishment, is exactly the same thing as the defence provided for him if he is prosecuted in the Court. The certificate is merely a pre-determination by the Board of Trade of that; which the Court will determine if the man is eventually prosecuted. Under Clause 13 a renter, who has on his quota a greater amount than he himself needs, can transfer a proportion to a transferee, but only provided that he obtains first of all the consent of the Board of Trade. If, having obtained the consent of the Board of Trade, it is eventually found that he has not a sufficient quota himself, the Board of Trade may prosecute him for the very offence which they themselves ought to have found out before granting him their consent to a transfer, and he can again be mulcted in a sum of, I believe, £20. Sub-section (4) of Clause 13 contains a remarkable definition of a registered British film. It says:
In this Section. 'registered British film' means a British film which either at the time of its acquisition by the renter is. or later within the same calendar year becomes, a registered British film: and registered film' means a film which either at the date of its acquisition by the renter is. or later within the same calendar year becomes. a registered film.
It reminds one of the definition of Polonius of madness. "What is madness? Nothing else but madness[...]." I am not going to cavil so much at the language of the film—I do not know whether American captions are responsible for the English of this Bill or not—but I take, as an instance, Clause 26 (3) which gives a definition of a British film. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley has already dealt very clearly with paragraph (3, iv), but I turn to (3, i). A British film
must have been made by a person who was a British subject"—
5.0 p.m.
A man may at some time or other have been a British subject, and he may have changed his nationality before he became responsible for the film, but he fulfils all that is demanded of him under that para-
graph. The Solicitor-General shakes his head, and I have no doubt that what is intended is that he must be a British subject. at the time of the making of the film, but the Bill does not say so and this is a penal Clause. I want to draw attention to another serious penalty imposed under Clause 23. Clause 23 provides that, in certain circumstances, there can be proceedings taken, either summarily or by way of indictment, and that the Court can impose penalties upon the renter under Sub-section (2); that his licence shall be revoked and that no licence shall be issued to him or to any person with whom he is financially associated or to any person who acquires his business. Imagine the position under this Clause. A prosecution can be launched, or it need not be launched, during any period within two years of the commission of the offence. If an offence has been committed by a renter, and after a year he sells his business in good faith to a bona fide purchaser, and if it has been found that an offence has been committed by the previous renter, it may be 15 months or even two years previously, proceedings are taken against the previous renter. The purchaser of the business in this case may, if the Court thinks fit, have his licence revoked. I have no doubt that the Court will not revoke the licence in these circumstances, but the onus of proof will rest on the man who bought the business, and that is a complete change of policy. Where you are prosecuting, the onus of proving the offence should be on the people who are taking proceedings, and it should not rest upon a man who is an innocent purchaser.
In regard to the quotas which are to be provided, there are two sets of quotas here, one to be provided by the renter and the one to be provided by the exhibitor. The exhibitor has to obtain his quota from any one of 30 renters. He may take either foreign films, or his quota of British films from any one of the 30. Fifteen of the 30 may have passable British films, but the other 15 may have British films that no exhibitor desires. The renter is compelled to store 7½ per cent. of these, for which they can
never have any market. It is a loss in the first year, and it is a progressive loss. The alternative may be to say that the exhibitor would have to take his 7½ per cent. as he books his films. If that is what is meant by the Bill, and I think that is what is meant, then you are imposing on the exhibitor a number of British films which he may not desire.
Possibly the most remarkable provision is in Clause 14, which deals with the small renter, the man who does not rent more than six films during the year. He has two courses open to him for the purpose of providing his quota. The first course that is open to him if he so desires, and if the other people so desire, and, in addition, if the Board of Trade consent, is to combine with other renters to provide his quota. If he does not so desire, or if he fails to obtain the consent of the Board of Trade, he has to provide his quota upon six films, and 7½ per cent. on six films would work out roughly at about one-third of a film. I read with interest a speech by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer), who spoke with first-class knowledge of this subject. He said that the only line where the British film industry could hope to recover its prestige was in those sections of the industry which are precisely excluded under the terms of this Bill. There was no hope, in his view, of the British film industry being able to compete with and rival that of America. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has not said that the Bill is going to do anything of the kind. Hardly a good word has been said for it in the Press, not in the Press which is hostile to him but the Press which supports him, from the "Times" downwards. I would not be surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman bringing in a Bill to make readers of the "Westminster Gazette" take in the "Morning Post," and that would be just as sensible as the Bill which he has brought before the House.

Colonel APPLIN: I have listened to this Debate with some interest, because I think the principal thing in the Bill has been rather lost sight of. One hon. Member said last week that the quota was really a subsidy, and that, while he did not object to subsidies, he objected to a quota. The quota is a subsidy with
this enormous difference, that it does not cost anything. Why is it necessary to have a quota or subsidy to encourage the making of British films here? The reason is that, when we were engaged in a world War,, America was making films and developing this brand-new industry, and by the time the War was over and we could look at films again, our theatres had begun to take American films, we bad begun to build theatres to take American films and we have taken them practically ever since. That is why we have to adopt this method, which may not be the best method of dealing with the matter, but it is the only method. British films are no worse and no better than American films as pictures or works of art. The great mistake we all make in speaking of the American film is that we confuse the super-film which costs £100,000 with the ordinary film costing £10,000. We have not attempted to make the super-film because we could not afford to do so, but America can make it because they have the market on the spot. Their 120,000,000 people will pay the whole cost of it before the film comes over here. Before the super-film can come here, the exhibitor is obliged to book blindly, because he does not know what the films are to be. He has to take a certain number of films which are wedged in between the super-films, and he has to book as long as 18 months in advance. That must be a method by which, in the block, you get inferior films. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has said that British films are bad films. They are not bad films. They are better even than some of the films that are more popular. When we go to see some of the American films, we realise what the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. Mac-Donald) said with regard to the foreign film that he saw in Arabia. We realise that these films are very objectionable. I saw a film some time ago, in a big theatre in Regent Street, called "What Price Glory," and I was astonished that that film had passed the censor, and glad that no daughter or female relative of mine was there to see such a film or would go to see it. That is not the sort of film we British people want to see in our London theatres. The war scenes were magnificently made, but the scenes in the cabarets and the women and that sort
of thing are not the kind of thing we British people want to see.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You want more; it is all part of war.

Colonel APPLIN: I have seen a little more of war than the hon. Member, but in the three campaigns in which I have been engaged I never saw a British officer or a British sergeant behaving in the way these people in the American film were alleged to have behaved. We have got to get hack into the film industry, and we cannot do it unless we have some means of compelling renters and exhibitors to take at least a small proportion of British films. Germany has produced some of the most magnificent films ever shown. and there is a new German super-film. Germany has a 50 per cent. quota and that is how it is done, but we are not asking 50 per cent., we are asking 7½ per cent. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley made a statement in which he said that next year we should want a 6 per cent. quota of British films.

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, 7½ per cent.

Colonel APPLIN: But this year we are actually producing 7 per cent. of British films.

Mr. SNOWDEN: indicated dissent.

Colonel APPLIN: I am quite prepared to stand by that statement. If we get the quota we are asking for and the renters show these films, next year, when the quota is raised, we shall have more than sufficient to meet the quota and of the very best quality.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that American capital has now got control of the film-producing industry in Germany?

Colonel APPLIN: I would be extremely sorry if that happened, but we have the capital here to invest in our own film industry. Perhaps Germany, owing to the War, had not the capital, but that is not to say that we are to be in the same position later on. It has been said that we have no good films and cannot produce good films. The "Daily Express," in an article on the subject, speaking of the President of the Board of Trade, says:
Sir Philip now understands the screen situation as Well as anyone. Of these 60
British films produced under the urge of his threat and with his entire blessing, I challenge him to name 10 which could be regarded as first-class box office attractions in acting, dramatic or story merit, irrespective of technical quality, in which we are admittedly bad.
A challenge is there thrown out. I think we have these films, and if the House will bear with me I will read a little list. Anyone who has seen the films I am about to mention will admit that they are first-class films. They are not £100,000 films. I dare say some of them did not cost £10,000, but they are first-class films equal to any block-booked American films. They are: "Hindle Wakes," "The Flag Lieutenant" "The Triumph of the Rat," "Mademoiselle from Armentieres," "Mons," "Palaver," "The Lodger," "The Chinese Bungalow" and "Second to None," and there are more. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments in favour of the quota is to be found in the article in this particular issue of the "Daily Express"—18th March—written for the express purpose of condemning the Bill.
From beginning to end of these quota negotiations, not one word has been said about producing the kind of film which the British public wishes to see, but the ordinary man will be disposed to think that that should be the keystone of the whole discussion. The plain truth about the film situation is that the bulk of our picture-goers are Americanised to an extent that makes them regard a British film as a foreign film, and an interesting but more frequently an irritating interlude in their favourite entertainment. They go to see American stars; they have been brought up on American publicity. They talk America, think America, and dream America. We have several million people, mostly women, who, to all intent and purpose, are temporary American citizens.
There is the greatest indictment I have read yet of the system under which films are shown in this country. When we remember that these films are being shown all over the world, we must realise the necessity for doing something to build up our own industry. I desire to point out some practical facts in reference to the question of the quota. In the first place, there is no question as to the means of producing these films. We already have quite a number of firms competing, and, if the quota comes into operation, it will not be a case of the renter or exhibitor having to accept any sort of film. A number of good British firms are pro-
ducing and there will be competition among them. Business men are not fools, and with half-a-dozen competing firms they are not going to be content with producing inferior films. Competition will produce the best quality. Already we have seven studios which are at the present moment making films. There are studios at Cricklewood and Elstree—and Elstree is going to be one of the biggest studios in Europe. It already is large enough to hold two studios. Already one bay has been built, and if this studio is developed we shall be able to produce super-films of the kind which America is now producing. Then there are the Gaumont Studios at Shepherd's Bush, the Gainsborough Studio at Islington, the British Instructional at Surbiton and the Nettlefold at Walton-on-Thames.
With these studios in existence, there is no reason why good British films should not be produced—films better than those produced in the past and able to hold their own in competition. In that way renters and exhibitors will be assured of having a choice of first-class British films. In any case, the House must realise that at present the exhibitor has to take blindly these very inferior American films—I do not want to use the expression "rotten." These films are being booked blindly in advance and are exhibited every day, very much to the detriment of our people who have to go to see them. This Bill is a necessity in order to restore our power to compete with the American film. I have not the slightest doubt that long before 1936 we shall have got back at least 50 per cent. of the industry and that long before we reach the quota, we shall have put the British film industry on its legs again. We shall then be well on the way to the point at which we can dispense with films which many of us deplore and which we do not like our children to see in our cinema theatres.

Mr. BECKETT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has made very able use of the argument always advanced from those benches when it is suggested that any section of British industry should be assisted by some method of protection. If one does not scrutinise arguments of this kind very carefully, they sound very generous and good hearted. This proposal at first sight seems to do credit to those who support
it. But I find it completely unconvincing. When proposals of this kind are brought before the House, we are told that they are for the benefit of British industry, British labour and British working people, but we always find in them some peculiar loophole whereby a monopoly is to be given to a certain small section of producers or manufacturers, whereas no safeguards are provided either for the workers in the industry or for the mass of the people who are concerned. This Bill follows the precedent of previous Protectionist Measures brought before us by the President of the Board of Trade. A certain very small industry regardless of the cost of its wares or their value or the capacity of those engaged in their production, is to have unlimited scope to help itself—to a great extent at the public expense—and no guarantee of any kind is given to safeguard either the exhibitors, the people who pay to see the pictures or the great mass of the people.
We are all desirous of seeing the standard of the pictures exhibited here as high as we can make it, but if the Government were sincere in the patriotic declarations which they always make when introducing a Bill of this kind, it would be the simplest matter in the world to enact that this quota must be taken, provided there are sufficient British films of suitable attractiveness at a price which is reasonable to the exhibitor. Many of us here are quite as anxious for British industry as any hon. Gentleman opposite, but the part of this Bill which makes us despair is the utterly callous way in which the interests of the mass of the people are thrown haphazard at the feet of those who have been described very well by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) as a set of Barnum and Bailey showmen, not fit to handle a great enterprise of this kind. These people whom the hon. and gallant Member describes so adequately are the people at whose mercy, without any restriction of any kind, the President of the Board of Trade is going to place the exhibitors and picture goers. I wish to look at this matter from a broader point of view than the economic point of view. Hon. Members have deplored the standard of pictures exhibited in this country. As has been said, the art of the cinema grew up in an extraordinary way, and it has
not yet, so to speak, found its feet. Hon, Members have spoken here as though the American pictures were those which we must specially seek to keep out because they are so cheap, so garish, so vulgar and their headlines and quotations are so bad. I have seen considerable numbers of British films as well as American films, and I do not think I have ever seen an American film with such cheap and vulgar quotations as a film which is touring the country at the present moment—"The Cabinet." I do not think the Americans ever reached such a depth of degradation as to refer to a responsible member of His Majesty's Privy Council, governing one of the most important Departments of State, by an extremely vulgar nickname and as being "the boy" who would chase some mythical people away. That seems to be an even lower standard than some of the objectionable headings I have seen on the American films.
The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last read a list of British films which he regarded as first-class pictures. That list included "Mademoiselle from Armentieres." and it is interesting to study the history of that picture. The great American war picture "The Big Parade" has already been mentioned. I saw that picture and I had the honour on that occasion of sitting near an hon. Gentleman who occupies a, place on the Front Bench opposite. We had a brief discussion afterwards. Like most men who served in the War, we admired the picture. Although it depicted American soldiers—there were American soldiers in the War if they did come in rather late—although as was natural in a film intended for exhibition in America, it showed a part of the Front which at that time was entirely occupied by American troops, that film was a wonderful and touching picture and very artistically presented. Then we had huge advertisements from the British producers about the British reply to the "Big Parade" and we were told to come and see "Mademoiselle from Armentieres." The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last referred to the vulgarity of "What Price Glory." I went to see the British reply to the "Big Parade" and when I saw the spectacle of French peasant girls running about the British front line during a bombardment, I realised that for mawkish and ridiculous sentimentality
there was nothing to touch those people for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman was at such pains to speak this afternoon.
It is useless to suggest that we are going to do any good by encouraging people of that kind. If it is to be of any use to our people, the cinematograph must be regarded as an artistic asset to civilisation; otherwise we are starting at the wrong end. That very great producer and actor, Mr. Douglas Fairbanks, recently made a tour of the film-producing countries, and when he came back he said that if he were to place them in the order of artistic merit Russia was producing the best films, that America was second and England was at the bottom. I do not think it is necessary, in order to qualify as a patriot, to be prepared to set one's own feelings aside in these matters. The Government have actually refused to allow some of the very best Russian pictures to be exhibited in this country because they are afraid they will not square with their own political opinions; as if art had ever known any frontiers or limitations of country and nationality.
The problem of the cinematograph is greater than an economic problem. If we are to improve the cinema we must improve the standard of films. Personally I would rather it were British producers who improved the standard; but whatever country's producers are prepared to get us away from the cheap and nasty films which have been described so very well by the hon. and gallant Member—except that the British are rather worse than the American—is going to do a tremendously great service, not only to the English public but to the world of civilisation in general. To send round the world the kind of film which the hon. and gallant Member has been boosting is a thing which I hope no patriotic Member of this House would think of doing, because films of that kind are repulsive and repellent to everything that is best in our national character, and are calculated merely to hold us up to ridicule and laughter wherever they are exhibited. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) made one of his usually very able and informed contributions to the Debate. I am always
impressed with his extraordinary gift for attaching entirely inaccurate premises to a wonderful collection of facts, and he was really at his very best this afternoon. First of all he told us what a terrible crowd we had producing films in this country. Perfectly true. We can tell that by the kind of stuff they turn out. He then said: "What of the American films? They are produced for America; and only if they have got time do they send them over here—dump them, to bring in a little extra revenue." On his own confession, and he is a very good judge, he said that British films, in their present hands, are not even able to compete with those prepared in America for American custom and dumped over here as a sideline. Having said that—and those are valuable facts for us to have—he then goes on to the premise that because the film industry in England is in the wrong hands, because it has no serious opposition from America, it is necessary for us to give a rapidly-increasing monopoly to the people on whom he has just poured every kind of scorn and abuse. I submit that there is no logical basis for this Bill at all. We cannot govern art, especially international art, by a quota system.
If ever anyone proposes to carve a statue of the founder, of the illustrious author, of this Bill, I sincerely hope that someone will not be selected haphazard and told that he must do it in two days and that he can charge what he likes for doing it, and that however much he does charge he will get his money. I can quite understand a gentleman who, if he is not the tool, is clearly the instrument, of a small and unscrupulous section of business people trying to force this Bill through the House. His own Press is against him; even the hon. Member for Wandsworth, who sits in his party and who knows this industry inside out, was. extremely nervous at out it in the Debate last week. We have had a number of cheap grafting Bills introduced into this House, and they usually come from the Board of Trade, and I suggest now that the Prime Minister is here, that he should take the advice, not of the Socialists and the Labour people, but of the people of his own party, not only those who are interested in this industry, but those for whose artistic opinions and standards he has some respect—that he should ask
them whether this important, industry is to be exposed to the cheap grafting purpose which this Bill is supposed to have.

Sir FRANK MEYER: It must have been a great comfort to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to find in so distinguished a person as Mr. Douglas Fairbanks an ally in his support of that spiritual home which so many hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite are proud to claim.

Mr. BECKETT: I should like to say in reply to that very foolish observation that I have not made that claim, and that I am quite as willing to do anything for my country as people who swank about the Union Jack.

Sir F. MEYER: I am sorry that a little Parliamentary chaff should have drawn from the hon. Gentleman that singularly offensive remark. In the course of his speech he criticised remarks made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), but evidently he had not listened to what that hon. and gallant Member had said. He seemed to think the argument had been that the production side of the industry had been in the hands of a very poor class of showman, and that these had been compared to Barnum and Bailey. My hon. and gallant Friend was referring to the exhibitors in this country. If the hon. Gentleman opposite looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will see that it was the exhibitors—who seem to be, just for this occasion only, the special subject of tears and sympathy on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite—who were compared to Barnum and Bailey. I was interested in the early part of the speech of the hon. Member, when he suggested that he would not be against the principle of a quota so much if it could be accompanied by some means by which a standard of quality in British films could be assured, and by control of prices. That is an interesting suggestion, but though I have thought over this matter for many years, and was for a long time connected with the exhibiting side of the industry, though I have no more connection at the present time, I cannot see what standard can ever be set up by which one can judge whether a film be a good one or a bad one.

Mr. BECKETT: The box office.

Sir F. MEYER: In other words, the public; but you can only tell how they like it after the film has been exhibited. That provides no standard by which you can say whether a film is fit before the contract is made and before the price is paid.

Mr. BECKETT: You can stop it afterwards.

Sir F. MEYER: That is a very difficult question. It has seemed to me that there are two main points of agreement amongst all Members on all benches. One is that it is desirable to promote the production of British films; and another point of agreement, perhaps not quite so universal, but I think almost universal, is that the kind of legislation we have in this Bill is prima facie undesirable It is because I believe this legislation to be so undesirable that I would like to examine very carefully whether the Bill will attain the object which we all agree is desirable, the production of good British films.
What are the subsidiary objects we have in mind when we say we want British films? The President of the Board of Trade laid emphasis at one time on the commercial side. He said a film would be a good selling agency. With that view of his I am not in agreement. Of course, it is a matter of opinion, and I do not think it is possible to prove whether a film is a selling agency or not; but even if it were a selling agency, we should not be justified in promoting the sale of British goods by such a Measure as this; because if the desire to sell British goods in foreign countries is to be the justification for a Bill like this it must follow logically that we could apply such legislation to other forms of industry. For my part, therefore, I put that argument on one side as not being a sound argument in favour of the Bill. The second object in view is to prevent the lowering of the standard of British taste and even British morals. How far can this Bill be said to effect that purpose? If American and other foreign films are really so lowering and degrading as some hon. Members would have us believe surely it is an insult to this country to leave us with 92½ per cent., 87½ per cent. and finally 75 per cent. A great deal of nonsense is talked about the effect of American and other foreign films on the people of this country. Some of
them may be cheap and vulgar, but so are many plays, so are many books, and unless we- are going to set up a censorship of taste I do not see that we have any right to deal by legislation with that aspect of the question.
Another subsidiary object, as put forward by the promoters of this Measure, is to get British films shown abroad. In my opinion that is exactly what this Measure will not do. We can never have a successful British film industry in this country based simply on the home market. There is not the money to be obtained from exhibiting it in this country to make a really first-class film pay. An outlet for the film must be found in foreign countries, most desirably in America, and if not in America at any rate in our Dominions or in foreign countries. We can only do that if we can produce good films. The mere fact of having a quota of films produced in this country will not sell them abroad. The mere quota provisions will not help but rather hinder in selling films abroad. The tendency will be that Americans will be less likely to take our films, whereas lately there has been a slowly growing tendency on their part to take the better pictures we have produced.
Hon. Members seem to forget that this is entirely a question of profit, and a good film will always find a market. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not in this country!"] An hon. Member says, "Not in this country," but, speaking as an exhibitor of films for three or four years, I have no hesitation in saying that whenever an English film of any quality was offered to us we were always more than delighted to take it. It is ridiculous to suggest that even a system of blind or block bookings could prevent good English films from being shown, because there is always a demand for good English films. We have to judge this matter by box office results, and I can say that some of them were very good and successful, although on the whole I must admit we found that our audiences preferred the American films, because technically they were better made, and undoubtedly America has obtained the lead in the film industry.
Another object of this Bill undoubtedly is to give employment in the film industry, a most laudable object, but such a device as compelling retailers and
wholesalers to take a. certain number of English films in order to encourage home production is not justifiable even in an effort to provide employment. If you follow that proposal to its logical conclusion, you must apply it to other trades as well. Therefore in the end it. boils down simply to getting more English films made, and undoubtedly that will be the effect. In that connection, however, I should like to deal with the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley {Mr. Snowden). It seems to me that for once in a way the right hon. Gentleman, who is usually so careful in his facts and figures, allowed himself to be misled. He said there were 800 films exhibited, and under the quota of 7½ per cent. we should have to increase the number of British films to 60 in the first year. From that the right hon. Gentleman argued that there might be as many as three cinemas in one town, and in order to get sufficient films this would set up an enormous competition among cinemas and this would have the effect of forcing up prices. My experience is that each cinema shows only one or at the most two films a week, that is 52 in the year, or 104 films a year when they change their programme twice a week.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They all change their programmes twice a week.

Sir F. MEYER: All the leading cinemas do not change their programme twice a week, but many of them show their pictures for seven days. Having been a director of one of these companies I know that in the big towns the pictures are booked to run for six or seven days. Assuming you can show 104 films in a year, you have only to show seven or eight British films in the first year, nine or 10 in the second year, and if you have 60 to take there is a very fair choice for the exhibitors. I do not believe the price will be affected as some hon. Members seem to fear, but what I do fear is that the quality of the films made in this country will suffer, and the industry will go down the hill instead of being encouraged.
A great deal of rubbish is talked about the American films. If hon. Members had seen a good many of these American films as I have done in years past, they
would have found that a large majority of them which are booked by the better houses are first-class productions. What is the reason for that? Simply that America gets all the best talent to come to her assistance. American films are not produced and acted and written by American citizens, because a very high proportion of those employed in the film industry are brought into America from all over the world. They have the very best German and Swedish producers, and others are also enlisted in support of the American industry. It is really an international industry in that country. The hon. Gentleman, who said that the market in this country was unimportant, is entirely wrong. A great many American films are produced at a very heavy initial cost, and the profit which they make is made on their foreign sales. They spend a considerable amount of money on their productions, and they only get it back in some instances on their exports to this and other countries, and this fact is of great importance to them.
It is very easy to criticise and say that the quota will not achieve the desired result, and it is perfectly natural to ask what is your solution of the difficulty? I admit I am disappointed that hon. Members opposite do not appear to have offered any alternative solution, and they seem to be more and more divided in regard to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley definitely said in his speech that blind-booking was quite legitimate, and to interfere with it was entirely wrong. In that respect the right hon. Gentleman seems to be in disagreement with the Leader of the Opposition.
I want very briefly to throw out a suggestion as to how better films can be produced. It is entirely a question of finance. If you have got the right finance you will get the best producers, the best actors, and the best scenario writers. You may call it art if you like, but it is really an entertainment, and to get the best entertainment you must have the right kind of finance. In America they have built up a proper system of finance to carry on the film industry. What is needed is continuous financial support for any company, because enormous expense is incurred in the first instance,
and before a company gets back its money on the sale of its first production it has to be making the second production; otherwise the studio is lying idle.
In America the banks advance the money on the forward contracts, and this enables the producer to make a second film, and they are able to get continuous finance in that way. I suggest to the Federation of British Industries that if they want more films they should at once turn their attention to the question of finance. The banks are generally willing to lend money on forward contracts in commodities. It has already been emphasised that the film industry is in a sound financial position, and there is no reason why banks should not lend money to producers on their contracts with renters and exhibitors whose balance-sheets and accounts are open for inspection. It is by providing continuously adequate and sound finance, and getting the right people by that method to ensure sound productions, that the film industry can be built up just as we have built up the industry on the exhibiting side on a sound basis.
This Bill incorporates what to me, personally, seem to be almost all the objectionable features that can be included in legislation. In the first place, there is interference with the business of an individual to whom you dictate as to how he shall carry it on. You provide for periodical inspection of books and contracts and so on, and additional returns have to be made out. Officials have to see those returns are properly made out, and inspectors have to see that the provisions of the Bill are carried out. The President of the Board of Trade said the administration of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, would cost about £4,000, and that that sum would be paid by the industry through registration. Nevertheless, that money has to come out of the industry whether by registration or through the general body of the taxpayers. Then there are new offences created, and that is one of the greatest objections there can be to any Measure which comes before this House. Surely we have enough petty offences without creating new offences and subjecting those who carry on this industry to harassing worries as to whether they are
breaking the law or not. For all these reasons, I am opposed to this Bill, hut, if I really thought in spite of all those objections that this Measure would have the result of producing a better quality of films which could be sold in foreign countries and our Dominions, I would support it. I do not believe that it will have that effect, and it will only produce quantity without quality. It will not raise our prestige as a film producing nation, and for these reasons I find myself unable to support the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I congratulate my excellent colleague opposite on the speech which he has just delivered, and I am pleased to find on the Conservative benches opposite at least one hon. Member who is not only in favour of individual liberty in the smoke room, but is determined to advocate it on the Floor of this House. I am glad to find that we shall have his support in the Division Lobby against this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill did so in such a refined atmosphere that I felt that be himself could never have sunk so low as to go to the pictures himself, and there was not one word in his speech referring to the common people who do go to the pictures. The President of the Board of Trade may find before this Bill is law that the common people who go to the picture have got votes. I suppose that quite 5,000,000 people per week go to the pictures, and they have not been considered in regard to the provisions of this Bill.
6.0 p.m.
I have listened for two days with a growing rage and anger to speech after speech from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have never in my life seen such a crowd of highbrows debating any question whatever. Really, I am a Philistine; I admit it; I go to the pictures. I am, in the language of those shocking American captions, a "film fan," and I believe honestly that I have seen more of these "second-grade American productions, don't you know," than the whole of the rest of the present House put together. I have not been corrupted by them, but I do feel inclined to tell the House, that does not go to the pictures, something about this Bill from the point of view of those who do. In the first place. I think it is becoming clear to
every Member on both sides of the House that, whatever else this Bill will do, it will shove up the price of the pictures. We understand, for instance, that all the costs of this inspection, all the cost of this licensing, measuring of reels, and so on, all the vast bureaucratic department that is to be established, the Committee which is to be set up to keep the Board of Trade permanently advised—all this is not to come upon the taxpayer. From whom, then, is it to come if it is not to come from the taxpayer? Obviously, it is coming from the people who go to 6ee the pictures—the consumers.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not the amount between £4,000 and £5,000?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not know, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will kindly glance at the Bill, he will find that in no case do the Government specify what the fee is to be for licensing or for registration.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the President of the Board of Trade when he was making his opening speech, he would have heard him say that it would only cost between £4,000 and £5,000 a year.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That was only one element in the price. He did not take into account the cost of keeping an extra clerk in every picture palace in order to keep on measuring the length of the reels and do other things in accordance with the terms of this Bill.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Only one clerk!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: At each picture palace. And apparently hon. Members assume that, if we establish here a British film industry, with a quota, the people who produce for that quota, and who are in a sheltered trade, will never think of combining together to keep up the price in the sheltered market. What innocents hon. Members must be! We have seen every trade that has a sheltered market managing to combine to keep up prices. There is the Light Castings Association, there are the brick and tile firms, there are Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company, and, latterly, we have seen the Government encouraging these amalgamations. When you have got amalgamated film producers in this country, and
when they know that they will have a quota of one-fourth of all the films shown, I think they will see, that not only their quota is cheap, but that their price is dear. We are going, obviously, therefore, to raise the price. With a large demand, a small supply, and the possibility of combining, all will combine together to force up the price of this inferior art. But that is not all. Hon. Members seem to think that the public of this country are prepared to go and see things that they do not want to see. This is the most insolent piece of legislation that I ever heard of. Why should I be made to go and see Sybil Thorn-dike? I like her very well as St Joan on the stage, but I do not see why I should go and see her on the pictures. I want to go and see Leatrice Joy and Laura La Plante. Why should you make me go and see some inferior artist that I do not want to see?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Shame!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) seemed to think that the British people were being corrupted with American captions. Let me tell him that we prefer American captions to English captions. The people who go to the pictures like to be amused. If the hon. and gallant Member had been to see some of these English films the names of which he read out, he would find that the captions were vulgar and dull compared with the American. That is not all. We do not go to the pictures necessarily to see the things with which we are familiar. We sometimes go to the pictures to be taken out of ourselves. Honestly, I infinitely prefer to see one of those giant American locomotives dashing through the Rockies, rather than the Southern Railway express to Brighton going through Horley Station. The ordinary people who go there like to see something fresh. They do not want to see Maudie driving Dobbin down to Mudford Market, but would rather see a bronco buster riding down the Bronx and hitching up to the rail outside Morgan's office—[Interruption]—or, if you prefer it, outside Lew Rosenbloom's in Tucson, Arizona. We want to see something that we do not see every day in England!

Sir H. BRITTAIN: We do see it every day!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Believe me, the people of this country really know what they want to see best, and, if you come along and say, "No, this is not highbrow enough; the House of Commons thinks you ought to see something which will improve your morals, and sell British hats at the same time," you are making the House of Commons ridiculous, and you certainly will not improve the electoral temper of the people who go to see the pictures. Do we really want, as a matter of fact, to produce in this country a film superior to the American? From what I have seen of British films, I think they fail in one or two particular ways. The humour is not so good. The humour seems to be drawn a good deal from the publichouse and the racing stable, rather than, as in America, from the college. The humour is poor. Then, again, there is too much of what we see in "Mademoiselle from Armentieres"—too much sentimental sloppiness. It is worse than in American films because, as it happens to be about people that we know, we see its faults, whereas in the American film you do not recognise the faults at once. In the case of the English film you see that the thing is false, and, therefore, you are disgusted with the film, and I think, until you get your artists over here to get round that difficulty, you will find that people will have to be quota-ed to make them go in and see British films.
Hon. Members opposite will say to us, "If this scheme of ours does not meet your views, what do you propose?" I do not see why we should be called upon to propose anything. The people who go to see the pictures are thoroughly satisfied with what they are seeing to-day, and I think it is for the Government to make out a case to show us why we should perforce change the minds and tastes of people who go to see the pictures. I think it would be extremely difficult, in any circumstances, to develop a film production trade in this country. It would be very difficult because we have not got a sun; we cannot rely on the atmosphere and climate in the way that they can in America. It would be very difficult for us because the big salaries that are paid in America are now drawing all the best artists in the world to
Los Angeles, and we cannot get them here. For these reasons, it would be very difficult to build up a film production industry in this country. But is the world going to come to an end because we cannot build up a film industry in this country? Do we really depend upon developing a more or less parasitic trade of that kind here? Hon. Members might just as well say that we must have a banana industry in this country, that we must produce bananas, that we must make a banana quota in order to force the people to grow bananas in this country, and to eat them when they are grown. We have got on very well all these years without growing bananas in this country, and I presume we can still get on.
The whole argument in favour of building up a film industry here is based upon a familiar fallacy. The idea is that, if British capital is not invested in producing films, British capital will be lost. Every business man knows that, if British capital is not invested in making films, it will be invested in something else, perhaps more productively. By directing the investment of capital into that particular line, we are not creating greater opportunities for employment in this country; we are merely diverting employment which would be going on in some other industry, if the capital were invested in that industry, into the film industry instead. I would sooner see British capital invested in those industries which are producing the ordinary common necessary articles for the mass of the people than in producing inefficient films of a character which will secure the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, who will never go to see them. This Bill, of course, is an importation from Germany. I could wish that the right hon. Gentleman should take his economic views from somewhere else than Germany; but, if he is going to import from Germany this new idea of compelling a docile population to go and see what they do not want to see, I would advise him at the same time to get over here that docile population which they have in Germany, who would submit to this compulsion. In Germany they have been trained to do and to think as the State thinks they ought to do and think. Our people here have not been trained on those lines, and they will not
tamely put up with a Measure which dictates to them what they have to see, which compels them to a course which will strike every man who thinks as impertinent, as an interference by Government which no British Government has any right or ever will have any right to make.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I have listened with much interest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, and in one point I agree with him. He says he has listened with growing rage and anger to some of the speeches. I too have listened with growing rage and anger to some of the speeches that have been made by hon. Members opposite. There is one point on which I should like to tackle the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He talks about growing bananas in this country. Can he control the frost? How can a single banana grow out of doors when we expect frost in the winter?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It would have to grow under glass, like your film industry will.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: That is a totally impracticable proposition. The banana is an outdoor fruit and it is impossible to grow it under glass. In listening to the opening speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer I was forcibly reminded of a picture of Torquemada, the grand Inquisitor of Spain, confronting a person charged with heresy in the person of the President of the Board of Trade. To the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the question of Protection and Free Trade is absolutely a point of heresy and his real fear about this Bill is that there is some element of Protection in it. The whole of his arguments were directed against any form of Protection. The moment you mention Protection he is narrow-minded and bigoted, though thoroughly sincere, exactly as was Torquemada. He suggested, among other things, that if we had any form of Protection here the Americans would retaliate and would give up the British market. But the British market is far too valuable for them ever to give it up. They have spent their money in this country. They are buying up cinema houses all over the country and having the quota is the only sure foundation by which you can insure
that British films are shown in American houses in this country. The right hon. Gentleman also said that America had made the cinema industry in this country. Before the War our cinema industry was prospering. During the War we devoted all our energies to winning it, but for two years America was able to devote her energies to building up the cinema industry.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that any reason why you should handicap the ordinary person who goes to the movies in England?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: No, but they got the start. After the War we had to put our house in order. [An HON. MEMBER: "So did the Germans!"] The Germans have a quota to-day. They are putting their house in order, and that is what we ought to do. I only wish my right hon. Friend had started it earlier, and by this time we should have made the cinema industry. But I cannot understand hon. Members opposite, who always say that British films are bad and anything with regard to Britain is bad. They say films are bad because they are British. If they go on that Coue system, people will eventually believe that British films are bad. Why cannot they say sometimes that our films are good? Is there any reason why we should not produce good films? There is nothing in the climate to prevent it. Most of them to-day are produced indoors. After all, we have the great advantage of scenery. Take Haddon Hall, for instance—where could you find a finer example of an English house?—or some of the old Dorsetshire manor houses, with green lawns and beautiful trees as a setting for a film. We have advantages which America has not got. We want to start this industry, but we want some protection for it at the beginning. You have these great American financial interests whose object is to prevent the industry from starting, and they are using all their endeavours to decry our films and to say they are bad and are not worth showing. The Americans were the earliest to realise that it is no longer a question of trade following the flag but of trade following the film. In Canada 95 per cent. of the films shown are American. We want to
show our ideals and our life as it is and not American ideals and American life as portrayed by American films. It is the best propaganda possible to have a strong British film industry. Some 300,000 people are employed in the American industry.
Hon. Members are anxious to have a remedy for unemployment. Here is a remedy by building up a new industry, and the only way we can build it up is by a system of quota, gradually increasing year by year. We shall thus employ a large number of people who are unemployed to-day. I do not say it is the best solution, but it is one of many and I believe in course of time we shall not only be showing a 25 per cent. quota but the British public will be demanding more than the 25 per cent. To-day they are compelled to take American films whether they are good or bad. because the British industry has not had a chance of starting properly. It has been handicapped ever since the War. The right hon. Gentleman stated that for eight years the British film industry has done nothing, and has had no chance. The reason is that you have had American money pouring into the country to prevent the growing up of this young industry, and to-day the great opposition is from the American money that does not want to have a new film industry to work against it. I believe it is the very best thing for us to have a strong industry, and to be able to send our films out to our Colonies and Dominions, for they are, after all, ambassadors of good will from us to them. They want to see English life as it really is and not as portrayed by the Americans. People living in the Dominions, many thousands of miles away, always look to the home country. Many of them cannot come and see their home country. If it were portrayed in films, they would have some real idea of what it is, and they would get to know something of our most picturesque villages, such as they have not got and will not have for hundreds of years. The American producers are taking from this country between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 as rent for these films. It is not subject to taxation, but is going free. Surely that money would be far better spent if we had a film industry in this country, and would bring in more money to the Exchequer, which is badly in need of it.
I shall, therefore, support the Bill with all my heart, and I wish it had been introduced sooner. I firmly believe it is going to make a start with a new industry which is going to be a great help to our trade, not only in this country, but with the Dominions, because it will be a message of good will from us to them.

Mr. HALL CAINE: I do not often inflict a speech on this long suffering House because I hold the view that one should either have some oratorical power or else have some intimate knowledge of the subject under discussion. I hope I may be able to contribute some little to the general knowledge of the House on the question under review. I have listened very attentively to the whole Debate, not only to-day but last week, and I think I can safely say that the only two technical speeches that have been delivered were one from the Opposition Benches, by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer). I can fairly claim some technical knowledge of the film industry, but it is necessary to say, in view of some remarks that have been made, that I am not a member of the Federation of British Industries, and at present I have no financial interest either as exhibitor, producer or renter. I have, however, a somewhat indirect interest in the business in that a very close relative of mine—I might say a distinguished relative—has been, perhaps, the greatest contributor to super-films among British authors. I think he has contributed as many as 12 what are called in America super-films. Speaking as one who at any rate understands the author's point of view, the British authors to whom I have spoken will welcome the Bill, for they will at last find themselves in a position to have their films properly produced under British auspices and not have to suffer as they have done for many years at the hands of foreign producers.
Sixty per cent. of super-pictures are taken from novels or plays and only 40 per cent. can be said to be studio-written films. A British author is approached by a cinema-producing company and is made an offer for the rights of his book or play. Having agreed terms, he hands it over to the company and they put it before their scenario writer. This is perhaps
the most important man in connection with the whole thing we have been discussing. It is entirely in his hands as to how he deals with it. He can alter the whole plot and the whole tendency of the story and make it pro-British or anti-British, pro-American or anti-American. One of the objects on which we are nearly all in agreement is that we do not want our life and methods of life to be distorted to foreign people. The Leader of the Opposition was in agreement on that point. If the scenario is drawn by someone who is in opposition to this country, he may take the work of a British author and so distort it that it will be unrecognisable to the author himself. I had a rather amusing experience in the South of France only the other day. I went into a picture theatre a few minutes after they had started and watched a film. I thought to myself," I know something about this thing. I have seen something of this story somewhere before"; but I had to wait until the end to find that it had been written by my father, and the book was one which I knew backwards and forwards. The scenario writer had changed the names of the characters, and, although he had laid the scene in Great Britain, he had so completely altered and twisted the plot that it became unrecognisable to one who knew it thoroughly, I am not going to say whether the scenario writer had improved it or not, but I only point out this instance to show how dangerous it is that the work of a British author should go to our Dominions and Colonies representing scenes which were never in the original plot.
A great deal has been said in this House about the value of sunshine. It seems to me that sunshine has been a blessed word among the opponents of the Bill. The hon. Member for Central Southwark, who has been more or less born and brought up in the industry, made a great point of the value of sunshine. The right hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that we have not the necessary sunshine in this country, and other hon. Members have talked about sunshine. Everyone seems to forget that in this industry 90 per cent. of the scenes in the film are taken inside the studio. I suppose-someone will say, "Yes, but in England you
are so full of foggy weather. "The hon. Member for Central Southwark made a great point about a studio in North London which, owing to foggy conditions, had suffered tremendous losses. I think he was referring to a studio built at Islington, on the banks of a canal; the very worst position for fog in the whole of London.
Notwithstanding that fact, let us look at the statistics of fog in that particular studio. In 1919, when the studio was built, they suffered interruptions on 20 days, due to fog. In the following year, they were closed down for another 20 days owing to fog. In the year 1921, they put in an air conditioning plant, and in the subsequent three years they lost only two days a year owing to foggy conditions. I suppose it is still within the memory of hon. Members that in January of this year we had thick fogs, terrible fogs, I understand. Thank goodness, I was out of them. I understand that they were of the worst possible description. During that period, this particular Islington studio was never closed a single day, but was working the whole time. That is due to the tremendous strides that have been made in the science of cinematography. Cameras are vastly better to-day than five years ago or even two years ago, and I believe that the methods for getting rid of fogs are improving every day and every hour. We talk in this House as if Hollywood was the only place in America in which films were made. Many of the great super-films produced in America have been produced in and around New York. Anyone who has been to America or who has lived in America and known something about the New Jersey fogs will know that a London fog is only an imitation. Therefore, I think we can dismiss the question of fog.
It is perfectly possible to produce films in this country if it be only a question of climatic conditions. It is very largely a film-producing problem. We have three problems to deal with. There is the national problem, the exhibitors' problem, and the patrons' problem. One hon. Member says: "Why should not people who go to the theatres see what they want to see?" That is quite right, but the whole thing turns, in my opinion, upon the question of the producer. Can we in this country produce as good films
as there are in the world? If we can, then the exhibitors' problem is solved, and the problem of the patron, the British public, is partly solved. Surely no one would complain of seeing 25 per cent. as the maximum quota of British films because they happen to be British films, so long as they are as good as any other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" I am glad that I have carried hon. Members with me in that statement. Therefore, it is a problem of producing, and on the problem of producing I have tried to show that there is nothing in the climate against it. Some five or 15 years ago the hon. Member for Central Southwark would have been quite right, but things have moved since then, and the climate is no longer a factor. I do not want to mention any particular film, but there was a film produced recently—I think it is called "Down the Hill"—which was as good a piece of photography as any that I have over seen, although it was produced during a difficult period. I ask hon. Members to look at it, and they will see that I am right from the photographic point of view; I am not talking about the value of the film.
With respect to the actors and actresses, it has to be. remembered that British actors and actresses went out to Holly-wood and were were originators of the great American industry over there, backed, I admit, by American capital. Some of the greatest producers and some of the greatest directors of the American film industry have been Britishers, and I am proud of it. What Britishers have done before they can surely do again. What we are asking them to do is to do it right here at home in England, because there is nothing in the climate against them. Science has so advanced that there is nothing whatever to stand in the way of their doing it. I am glad that the hon. Member for Central Southwark is now in his place, because I dislike criticising him behind his back. He pointed out the method by which film-producing companies were financed. I think I am quoting him correctly. He said that the film-producing companies went round to so many exhibitors and gathered up contracts with 100 or 200 of them, and upon that the bank advanced money.

Colonel DAY: In America?

Mr. CAINE: In America. The hon. Member must go over there again and rub up his facts. That is not exactly what takes place to-day. I am a little more modern than he is. There are three factors in this great industry. There is the producer or film maker, there is the distributor as they call him in America, or the renter as we call him, and there is the public. It is true that in some instances the distributor controls a certain number of theatres, but what happens is this, that when the producer has captured a great story out of which he is going to make a film, he goes to the distributor in America and says: "I have got this book, I have got Charlie Chaplin to play the chief part, and I have got Herbert Brennan to produce it. What do you think of it? I have worked out the cost and I think it will amount to 500,000 dollars or 1,000,000 dollars. Will you advance me 50 per cent. of the money, on a sharing terms basis?" The distributor looks at the position. He looks at the cost, and perhaps says: "You are paying too much for this fellow," or You are paying too much for that. "He looks at it from the partner point of view and finally says: "I will go in with you." He has not consulted any theatres or booked any theatres. He takes the chance and backs his judgment and advances to the film maker 50 per cent.
That is exactly what has not happened but is going to happen in this country in the future. In future, we shall have large film producing companies established here. It will be a new business for them. We cannot call it any very great protection at 7½ per cent. for the first year, with practically 90 per cent. of foreign films. What will happen over here will be this, and I think the House will find that it will happen, that companies will start here to produce films and they will go to the big distributors or renters over here, who are 80 per cent. American themselves. The distributing houses in this country are 80 or 90 per cent. American allied houses. They are either actually American houses or they are British companies, with shares held by an American company. The film maker will go to the distributor and say: "I have got Sir Gerald Du Maurier to act for my film. I have this book, and I
am going to spend £100,000 upon the film. Will you finance me to the extent of £50,000?"
The film distributor or renter will have to make up his mind. He will say, "Yes I will." Then, the renter becomes an interested party. He is interested to see that a jolly good film is produced because it is obvious, and no one knows better than the hon. Member for Central Southwark, that a distributor is not going to get beck even his 50 per cent. out of the English market alone. The film has to go ahead; it has to go to the great American market and it has to be a good film. The distributor is an American company. The Americans have the distributing business in their own hands. The distributor will see to it that as far as he is concerned the film maker does his job and does it right well. I think it is going to be possible for the British film maker, more or less, to make terms with the distributors, and to say, "It is the distributor who gives me the American market as well as the British market with whom I will enter into partnership over this film." I have tried to prove to the House that there is a possibility of establishing here a film industry.
There seems to be a fallacy in the mind of the hon. Member for Central Southwark, and in the mind of a gentleman who has an imposing and important circuit of picture theatres—who has, no doubt, addressed to other hon. Members the same letter that he has addressed to me—that if you have a great theatre like the Plaza, the Rialto or the Capitol, where you show only one great super-picture, you will be in a much more favourable position in regard to the quota than if you are some poor little picture theatre in the East End of London or in my constituency or in some tiny town where you have to show a large number of small films. As I understand it—the President of the Board of Trade will correct me if I am wrong—the film is to be a footage film. The quota is to be footage. Two films of 6,000 feet each are the same as one film of 12,000 feet, and if you show a 6,000-foot film three times over it is equal to one film of 18,000 feet. If you take the number of films and a man
shows over 300 films as against another man's 400 films, you must add up the footage, and the only man who will have to take the greater quota will not be the man who shows the smaller number of feet but the one who shows for the longest number of hours. If you show a thing three or four times every day and another man shows it twice, you use more feet of film than the man who only shows it twice. The thing is perfectly clear. You have 6,000 feet of film, if you show it three times you show 18,000 feet of film, and that is exactly the same thing as if you show a film of 18,000 feet, which is about one night's entertainment.

Colonel DAY: It is one day's entertainment, not one night.

Mr. CAINE: Yes, one day. The other small point I want to touch on is this. The hon. Member for Central Southwark asked: "What are you going to do about these films. They will get cut down, and a film of 2,000 feet will ultimately come back for registration, if it ever does, 400 feet less, or 200 feet less." Surely the hon. Member knows that all the great distributing houses have service depots in various parts of the country, where a film is brought back and thoroughly repaired. If an exhibitor finds that a film is 50 feet short he raises a row about it. There are not many exhibitors who would accept a film 400 feet short.

Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Member explain what an exhibitor can do who is 150 miles away from London and a film arrives on the Monday morning 400 feet short? Is he to show that film or send it back?

Mr. CAINE: Obviously, he will show the film, but he will do what we all do when we have damaged goods sent us; he will raise the devil next time. I am sorry to have kept the House so long with a rather technical disquisition on this Bill. My own view is that it will do good for the British film industry as a whole. Hon. Members must remember that there are only 40,000 people engaged in the industry in this country as compared with 500,000 in America, where there are three hundred millions of capital invested. There is plenty of room for its development in this country. We can make as good films as anywhere
in the world, and I look forward confidently to the time, eight years hence, when British films will not only be the most sought after, but will sell at the highest prices in America.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: I think it is accepted now as common ground that we have been the victims since the War so far as the production of films is concerned. We were submerged then, but on the conclusion of the War we found that we were being held under by what has become a tied-house system, or ring of trusts, controlled mainly in America. I admit that certain other films come from the Continent of Europe. This trust, this tied-house system, is now so strongly entrenched, that it has much capital behind it, owns the films, owns 80 per cent. of the distributing power, owns a great deal of the publicity agencies, the trade journals and so on, all of whom are concerned with the policy of securing the trust in their position rather than the actual merits of the films shown. Reference has been made on various occasions to the climate of this country, and I think too much emphasis has been laid upon our climatic conditions in certain quarters of the House. The last speaker has pointed out that the greater portion of films are now produced in studios, and I think we might also suggest that there are great possibilities of still further improvement in the photographic art and practice which will enable us to do even better in facing any climatic troubles that may still remain.
There is a further point in that connection, and it is this, that in the Empire—and this Bill relates to Empire production—we have all the sunshine we could wish. There is not a climate, however excellent, that we cannot find in our own Empire. We have during recent times been very conscious of the fact that Empire settlement can proceed only at much the same pace as Empire development. It is no good trying to migrate people to our Dominions unless there are industries upon which they may be employed. At present we have concentrated our thoughts almost entirely upon Land settlement, but here, I think, is a great opportunity for people who have been brought up on the film industry, and who would be just as valuable as settlers as people brought up on
the land. Nay more, I think they would be more valuable because their very needs would give an opportunity for further land settlement. I am confident that if this Bill is carried, with or without amendment, and no doubt there will he considerable Amendments made in Committee, we shall see a great deal more capital attracted into the industry and a far better organisation taking charge of it than we have at the present time.
We are too modest about our own abilities. Some of the best film artists have come from these shores. At the present time they are practising in America, but there are just as many potentially good artists in this country as those we have already sent abroad. In art and literature we far surpass other countries; and there is this simple test for that, whoever heard of an art collector going to America to buy things? Plenty of our art collectors go there to sell. We have a flair for pageantry. Our military tattoos, and other scenes we stage, show that we have a flair for this kind of art, and we have a wealth of history, romance and scenery, from, which we can draw every sort of inspiration and subject-matter for our pictures. It is for these reasons that I feel confident we can, if we are given this initial protection to enable production to get well under way, win through on our merits. I do not wish to criticise the films that come from America and the Continent, but I do think that necessarily there are a great number of incongruities in these foreign films which rather repel and irritate audiences in this country. I find in conversation with my friends that they have had a surfeit of these foreign ideas. The American youth is a most splendid thing, but the American youth is the most stereotyped animal we find anywhere in the world.
Then again, our own Empire is most eager to see films depicting scenes in the mother land, and it would be a great thing if we could see their scenes on our films. The Bill is based on the quota system, and I believe no other system is quite practicable to achieve the purpose desired. Those friends of mine whose Free Trade susceptibilities seem to be hurt by this Measure, all those who desire to keep a free market in films, ought to bear in mind that if they let
things go as they are at present they will never get it. There is no free market to-day, and no likelihood of a free market in films unless something is done to break the ring which has been formed. I have no doubt many Amendments will be moved in Committee,, and changes may take place. Personally, I rather favour the idea of putting some limit to the time this form of quota protection is to be enjoyed. Other hon. Members wish to speak, and I do not want to detain the House any longer, except to say that I support the Second Beading of the Measure.

7.0 p.m.

Major CRAWFURD: I desire to say one or two words with reference to the speech made by the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine), who, like a good many other speakers in this Debate, added something to the knowledge of hon. Members regarding this Measure. I think the speech of the hon. Member was more informative than he intended it to be, because he gave us a very carefully-worded picture, drawn from practical knowledge and experience,. of the producer of a film securing the co-operation of somebody in putting that film on the market, but ho did not draw a picture of what might happen under this Bill, and I could not help thinking, while he was speaking, of the controversy which arose between the hon. Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) and the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snowden). The argument of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Oppositio[...] Bench, which I do not think has been finally settled, was that under the provisions of the Bill and in the present state of production of films in this country it will be doubtful if next year there will be enough films construt[...]ed or finished to reach the quota laid down in the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield quarrelled with the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, but even the figures which he gave to the House himself seemed to show that the supply of films would be very little larger,, if at all, than the quota laid down in the Bill.
If that be the case and the supply of films in this country is not enough, or only barely enough, to reach the quota which the right hon. Gentleman the Pre[...]i-
dent of the Board of Trade, has laid down, it is perfectly clear that the element of competition almost disappears, and we must surely have, and I venture to predict we very quickly shall have, a state of things, not as pictured by several hon. Members on the opposite side of the House of British film producers competing to get a share of this quota, but combining between themselves and sharing out the quota laid down under the provisions of the Bill. When the hon. Member who spoke last, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury) criticises us because our Free Trade susceptibilities were hurt, I would reply that that is no answer to us and that the essential core of the opposition to this Bill has never been answered. We have had various interesting contributions. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, for instance, said we were debarred during the War period, owing to the efforts we were making, from developing the film industry, but he may remember, although I was not here myself, that it was during the War period—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) who was in his place a little while ago, can tell me if I am right, as also can the President of the Board of Trade—and during the later stages of the War, that the Government themselves were organising a film to advertise themselves. I think that was so, and even if that be not true, it is true that Germany, with regard to the production of films, was in just as bad a position as ourselves. When the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford tells us, "Yes, but Germany had a 50 per cent. quota," I reply that it has nothing to do with the quota. The reason Germany is making progress in the film world to-day is simply because she is, for the first time and first among all the film-producing nations, bringing an element of brains and intelligence even into the production of films.
The hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) spoke in defence of American films. I do not feel as he does, nor do I feel with the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield that the films are grossly immoral, because, if that be the criticism and if he objects, as he seems to object, to
the portrayal of cabaret life in other countries on the films, he will find in London cabarets which go as near to nature as anything I have seen on the films. It is not in the standard of morals where the film has failed; to my mind, it is the terribly low standard of intelligence. I have very much sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member who has not been in the House to-day but who complained, on the occasion of the first day's discussion, of the libellous films which appear in various parts of the world with regard to the habits and modes of life in this country. I entirely appreciate his objection to that, although I would say that this Bill does not touch that matter. A great deal of the criticism of American life which we hear on all sides of us is derived from the spectacle of American life that we see on the average film. But there is nothing in this Bill which is going to help the better portrayal of British life and British manners either in the Dominions or elsewhere. When the hon. Member for East Dorset was speaking, he threw some light on the method by which a film is produced and marketed, but he said nothing which would convince anybody for one minute that when this system of quotas is introduced it will not be used by the producers and by the authors to enable them to combine together and to share out the quota and to foist a bad article on the public at what may easily be an enhanced price. He told us about the means by which a large portion of films are now produced indoors, and he gave as an example the studio at Islington, and how during the last seven years in that particular studio there had been great improvements made and adaptations of scientific research so that even on a foggy day or in a foggy month a first-class film can be produced in our climate. If that be so, then what need is there for the Bill and what need is there for the quota?
Our objection, and our sole objection, to this Bill is that you are giving people an artificial protection. Either the film industry needs the quota because it cannot produce good enough films to compete in the open market without a quota—and I agree at once that with regard to blind booking and block booking you must take steps to make the market as open as possible—or, if it can produce films good enough to compete in the open markets it does not need the quota, in which case
the quota is an immoral protection because it bolsters up an inefficient industry. I think it was a perfectly good argument which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition the other day when he said that this quota system was in the nature of a subsidy. On that occasion when I made an interjection, the Leader of the Opposition took exception to it apparently and he was good enough to suggest that I suffered from delusions. I was under no delusions as to what he meant nor was I under any delusion about the right hon. Gentleman himself. What he was arguing was that the quota system as laid down in the Bill was in the nature of a subsidy and that a subsidy could only be justified if after a certain stated period it had rendered itself unnecessary. I ventured to say that was why the coal subsidy was wrong—because that subsidy was put up by the Government in order to give the trade an interval for coming to terms. It did not achieve its object, and that is why it was wrong. If it be necessary to have a subsidy of this kind, or a quota, as it is in this case, because the British film industry, by its merits, cannot compete in the open market, then I say it would be just as sensible to insist that British furniture makers should employ 25 per cent. of British mahogany in producing goods, and if there be no British mahogany, to say that then we will plant some.
I saw in the papers this morning that one of the members of the crews who are taking part in the boat race is suffering from German measles. It would be almost as sensible to say that he should have a certain percentage of English measles, which is certainly as good as German measles. There is no end to the absurdity of the examples which could be produced and which are just as sensible as the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman that you should insist on 25 per cent. of a bad British product—if it be bad. Let not the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford tell us on this side that we are the people who say British films are bad. In his opening speech, the right hon. Gentleman himself said, as far as I understood the passage, that if you opposed this Bill, then you were as good as saying that nothing could be done. I think that was the meaning of that passage of his speech.
We do not say that. We say that the British film industry can be improved and can compete on its own legs. It is hon. Members opposite who are the Little Britons or Little Englanders and the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain), because if you say the British producer cannot compete in the open market you are the people who are belittling your countrymen, and not we. We say this industry can be improved and has got a future but on its own merits. We do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has any right nor do we think any case has been made out, for putting one more British industry on the dole and adding it to the long list which the right hon. Gentleman has already got.

Captain CAZALET: In the few minutes which are at my disposal I want to try to answer, to the best of my ability, some of the arguments which have been used by the Opposition against the Bill. The general argument made against it amounts almost to this, that the Bill is going to impose upon an unwilling public boring and uninteresting films. I would suggest that there is talent and genius in this country sufficient to compete in a similar industry with that in any other country. Three requisites are necessary for producing an attractive and good film—climate or the equivalent of good indoor apparatus, good scenarios, and good acting.
In the first place, we have in this country already at Elstead, a studio which, I believe, in efficiency, is equal to any other in the world. I think it is the only one at the present time, but others would come into being with the natural growth of the industry itself. With regard to climatic conditions, there are many good films produced from Germany and France—and even from Russia at the present time, although it may be a bitter pill to confess that at the present moment. I believe that what I have said with regard to the climatic conditions has the support of the Meteorological Society in this country. They say that according to statistics extending over a period of some 15 years, the best climatic conditions in England both with regard to absence of rain, sunshine, and clearness of visibility, are obtainable in South and South-East England, and that a group of studios built in the best areas
in these districts would enjoy climatic conditions comparable to those obtainable anywhere in Europe, say, north of a line drawn from Paris to Berlin.
On the ground of climatic conditions I do not think there is any insuperable barrier against producing really first-class films. As regards scenarios, who to-day are the most popular authors in America? They are Bernard Shaw, Wells and Kipling. I cannot believe that this country, which since the days of Shakespeare, in practically every century and almost in every decade, has produced literary genius which has commanded the attention and admiration of the world, will fail to-day in producing a scenario which is comparable with that produced by any other literary genius. Finally, there is the question of the artists themselves. This is the country of Siddons, of Keane, of Booth and of Irving. There are English actors and actresses who to-day are touring the world with the greatest possible success. I do not believe that we cannot find among the people of this country actors and actresses who are comparable with the cinema stars of America and other countries. It may be argued that a good actor on the stage is not always a good performer for the cinema. I dare say it is within the recollection of hon. Members that two years ago the great actor, Mr. Barrymore, was performing in "Hamlet ' to the admiration of crowded houses every day at a London theatre. You could step across the road and see him performing on the films with the same admiration and perhaps to the same public, in the capacity of a hero in a mere love drama.
I am convinced that this country, both in providing scenarios and actors, is the equal, if not the superior, of every country that produces films to-day. This much discussed quota is not a product of the President of the Board of Trade, nor of the Government, nor of the British films industry. It was first suggested by a Committee of the exhibitors and distributors, who met in November, 1925, and suggested that the quota should start at 10 per cent. and rise to 25 per cent. in 1929. Compared with that suggestion, which came from the industry, the proposal of the Bill is child's play. I am convinced that it is only by the provision of the Bill that we can break the commercial coils which have strangled the
film-producing industry in this country and can give it breathing space in order that it may develop. I am convinced that as a result of this Bill in an amazingly short time we shall find that a compulsory quota is no longer necessary, because we shall be producing films which will not only be universally popular, but will do just tribute to the artistic, literary and dramatic talents of our race.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The speech to which we have just listened is the speech of a Member who has been whistling to keep up his courage. It said that this country possesses all the necessary qualities for successful film production. But that is not the view of the majority of hon. Members opposite, who, curiously, are to-day suffering from an economic inferiority complex on this matter. Their view, broadly, is that the plight of the British cinema industry is so serious and so bad and that there is so little likelihood of its ever being able to hold up its head in this country, that it must have 25 per dent. of the British market set aside for it in perpetuity. That is the principle of the Bill. In this Debate we have had an interesting discussion, from which most Members have learnt much of the cinema industry. But many of the speeches of hon. Members opposite in support of the Bill have been remarkable rather for their irrelevance and some hon. Members have supported the Bill with an uncertain voice and with the feeling, as expressed by one hon. Member, that the Bill is going to be considerably amended in Committee.
There are really serious questions affecting the cinema industry. There is the economic question and there is that series of political and moral and aesthetic questions to which reference has been made. My submission is that this Bill does not solve either of those questions. The American cinema industry is the largest in the world, and in my judgment it will for a century continue to be the largest in the world. It has economic advantages over the British industry and certain Continental industries which give it assistance that we cannot possibly claim. Is it to be suggested that the struggling infant industry of this country is going to be set upon its feet by merely putting a ring round 7½to 25 per cent. of the British market? I am not at all sure
that that means that there will be an expansion of the trade beyond that 25 per cent. If the President of the Board of Trade really believed that in 1936, when the 25 per cent. maximum is reached, the industry will be capable of keeping a quarter of the home market, he would have brought the operation of the Act to an end at that date. But he is so doubtful as to the prospect of the industry being able to keep that quarter, after it has got it, that he seeks to make the Bill a permanent feature of our legislation. In the long run the position of the British industry will depend on the quality of its films. It does not follow that because you compel people in this country to buy more British films, the producers will produce better British films.
I ask the learned Solicitor-General who, I understand, is to reply, exactly on what grounds the Government bases its view that producing more British films means that we shall produce better British films. If we do not produce better British films this Bill must fail in its purpose. Unless we do produce better British films the question of our entering foreign markets, in addition to keeping our 25 per cent. of the home market, would not be solved. The difficulty that I see about the quota is that it cannot and does not pretend to do anything to improve the quality of the British film, but what it will in fact do is to keep out of this country not merely a proportion of the low grade, unsatisfactory and sloppily sentimental American films, but will keep out the finest films that the world is to-day producing, the films to which reference has already been made, the films of Sweden and Russia and Germany. It does not seem to me, therefore, that this Bill solves the economic problem of the industry by increasing its output and increasing its quality. There is what I regard as a far more important question than that. It is not merely a question of taste. I do not believe that censorships can fashion the taste of the people. It may be agreed that many films shown to-day are of a deplorably low standard. That is a matter which can only be remedied in the course of time. It is a matter of education of the film-seeing public who will learn in time to appreciate the better films that are now being produced.
There is another side—the question of propaganda. I am no lover of the straw-hatted, gum-chewing American, and I am not at all excited at the prospect of witnessing many American films, but it is true that there is a certain subtle propaganda influence in the films of every nation, and that the very atmosphere of the cinema does make the mind more receptive of the influence of the film itself. This Bill is not going to remedy that. It is in the first year going to make certain that 7½ per cent. of the time you are in the cinema you shall see a, true-blue British film, as that is defined by the Bill, and the unfortunate people of this country will still have to witness 92½ per cent. of American propaganda. When you get your 25 per cent. of British films, in a two hours' performance, half an hour of British film is to be expected to counteract one and a half hours of propaganda from American and foreign films. It is absurd. To reduce. the propaganda value of American films to three quarters virtually leaves the problem untouched from the practical point of view. I am not satisfied that the influence of the foreign film on the people of this country is quite as deep and permanent as people imagine, but I think there is a real and serious problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech, and that is the effect of certain European, British and American films on the minds of Asiatic people. That is a very serious problem. I think that the majority of films that are being shown in the East to-day reflect little credit on the people of this and other countries in the West, that they do, indeed, bring into contempt Western civilisation. That is a very serious feature of the film industry today. It is, unwittingly if you like, creating erroneous impressions of Western civilisation, and probably doing incalculable harm in Asia and the East generally.
That is the biggest problem, so far as; the cinema industry is concerned, with with which the world is faced to-day. That problem is virtually untouched by this Bill, and I ask the Solicitor-General precisely how this Bill, with its provisions-regarding blind booking, and advance booking, and the quota, is going to minimise the serious influence which is-
being exercised abroad, not only by American, but by British films. It could only have an effect in this direction if, as a result of the Measure, the British- cinema industry became as large as the American cinema industry, became so large that it would be able to oust other films and if, in addition, every British film shown was picked for the purpose of exhibition to people who are easily capable of misunderstanding certain films. You can achieve neither of these objects by this Bill. The Bill is really a sop to the cinema exhibitors as regards the booking of films, in order that they may agree to a bribe to the producers, who are really the inspirers of this Bill. It is not even a bribe to the producers to produce good films; it is a 'bribe merely to induce them to outbid the sensational "crook" dramas of the American films, because, excluded from the operations of the quota are films of the kind which I should think the British cinema industry would be well advised to develop.
The President of the Board of Trade is the greatest exponent in this House of the fantastic caricature of Socialism, which hon Members profess to believe is supported by Members on these benches. This Bill is a caricature Socialist Measure, with its licenses, its registration, its records, its books, its inspections and its penalties. It will promote the kind of slave state which hon. Members opposite say—they do not believe it—Members on this side are endeavouring to lead up to. The real author of the slave state to-day is the right hon. Gentleman with this pettifogging series of restrictions, cramping an industry, not merely to prevent an evil—restrictions and regulations are necessary for that—but in order to determine the direction of trade. I say this kind of bastard bureaucracy has often been fastened round the necks of Members on this side of the House; it now proves to be the Conservative adaptation of our principles of public regulation. To anybody who has read its provisions, the Bill is the wildest farrago of administrative nonsense that was ever contained in the pages of a Measure submitted to this House. By any practical administrator this Bill would not be regarded as a serious Measure. It creates administrative problems which will exercise the mind of the right hon. Gentleman far more than it has been exercised by the
Safeguarding of Industries Duties—and that is saying a good deal. If this Bill ever emerges from Committee, about which I think there is a certain doubt, and if it is ever put into operation, about which there is even greater doubt, it will prove to be administratively unworkable. it is an attempt to use the State machine to twist into new channels a relatively small industry—and it is a relatively small industry, whatever its political influence and its moral and aesthetic influence may be. That attempt is bound to fail.
There are two ways only in which this cinema problem can be faced. If it be true, as the last speaker said, that in this country we have all possible advantages for successful film production, then let those advantages be used. To give an assured market will do nothing whatever to promote the efficiency of the industry. To-day every good British film is booked heavily, and all that is needed is for the producing side of the industry to continue to produce those good British films, and that problem will solve itself. As to the larger problem to which reference has been made in the course of the Debate, namely, the effect on other peoples of films depicting certain aspects of Western life—often the most unsavoury—there is no way short of international treatment. If the Government are in earnest about the foreign propaganda side of the problem, they should take the initiative in dealing with it on international lines. Believe me, British films sin against the light as much as American films. There are German films, Russian films, films of all countries, which may have unfortunate effects on the minds of certain peoples, and this problem can only be dealt with by a friendly international understanding—and I would say by means of a Convention under the auspices of the League of Nations.
This Bill cannot touch that great question which may prove to be one of the most important questions of our day, namely, the question of the exhibition in the East and elsewhere of undesirable films, giving impressions of the life of the white peoples which can only disgust and revolt the people of the East. That may prove to be an important factor in determining our relations with the people of the East in the future. I seriously
commend to the Government the possibility of taking international action on those lines. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has said, the Government will no doubt get their Bill. If they get their Bill, they will create a serious problem for themselves and their successors. They have not, in my view, handled this problem as it ought to have been handled. It is an attempt to apply rather petty Protectionist principles to an industry, the importance of which is far beyond that of the capital invested in it. It ought to be regarded not merely as a manufacturing industry producing so many hundreds of thousands of feet of film per year, but as an industry with powers for good or evil, for making or marring the people of this and other countries. It is the moral and aesthetic aspects of this industry which are all-important. Those problems are left by the present Bill for others to solve.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): Until I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) resume the Debate this afternoon, I was under the impression that there was at least one point on which everybody in the House was in agreement. I thought there was no dispute as to the condition in which the British film-producing industry is to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in a previous stage of the Debate, went so far as to express the opinion that it had been dead for the last five or six years, and he went on to say that not merely was the industry in an unhappy condition, but that its condition justified Government assistance. That opinion does not appear to be shared by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, if one may judge from his speech of this afternoon. I am left in some doubt as to whether the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood) shares the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition or the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley. He put his argument to the House in a hypothetical form. He said, if the Government were of opinion that the conditions under
which films might be produced in this country were satisfactory, it would be better to allow the industry to proceed without Government interference. But he did not express an opinion as to whether the industry needed assistance or whether it was capable of proceeding without assistance. The hon. Gentleman's Leader thinks it does require assistance and that it has been practically dead for five or six years; and he is in favour of one part of the Government's Bill, namely, that relating to blind booking or block booking. It is remarkable that we should have been asked to give two days to a Debate on this Bill only to discover that the spokesmen for the Opposition on the first day were of one opinion, while the spokesmen for the Opposition on the second day were of an entirely different opinion.

Mr. KELLY: We hold to both of them.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I gather that some hon. Members opposite feel that they know more about the subject now. If so is it their opinion that the right hon. Gentleman who took the responsibility of moving the rejection of the Bill, did not educate himself before undertaking that responsibility? Assuming that the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition is the better one, and that the industry is practically dead, and that its condition justifies Government assistance, I quite appreciate that there is a very natural difference of opinion as to what particular measures are desirable or possible. There is no doubt about the disease—except in the opinion of one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite—but the difference of opinion is as to the remedy for the disease. It all comes down to a very small point of controversy as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) said two or three days ago in his speech on this Bill. The Leader of the Opposition gave his support to that part of the Bill which proposes to abolish blind-booking or block-booking. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley is not in agreement with his leader upon that point.
The hon. Member for Southwark (Colonel Day) who spoke as an expert about films, was of opinion that blind-
booking has built up the industry to a large extent and, presumably, he was not in favour of the abolition of that system. Although the hon. Member for Southwark repeated a series of questions which occupied about half an hour in the reading, he did not begin sufficiently far back to include a question on 15th December, 1925, when he asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether he would consider putting an end to the advanced booking in block of cheap American films. If time allowed of a detailed examination of the opinions advanced at one time or another by Members of the Opposition, including the opinions suggested in questions put by the hon. Member for Southwark and by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), one might almost show that this Bill is the product of intelligent anticipation on the part of the Opposition coupled with a process of suggestion in questions addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, I am sorry to say, introduced a personal note in this Debate to-day. One understands his dislike of anything in the nature of interference with industry. In spite of the fact that he is such a good Socialist, he is always advancing opinions in favour of private enterprise, but on this occasion he went out of his way to declare that my right hon. Friend was in this matter a tool—then he corrected it by substituting the word"instrument"—of the Federation of British Industries. Faced, as he immediately was, by one of my hon. Friends behind me with the report of the Imperial Conference, and faced with the fact that it was the Imperial Conference that had recommended legislation for the prevention of blind booking and the imposition of requirements as to the acceptance of a minimum quota of Empire films, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley said "Yes, but the Federation of British Industries had taken it up before the Imperial Conference had arrived at those conclusions." If that were his only justification for the somewhat offensive suggestion that my right hon. Friend was the tool of the Federation of British Industries, I can only say the justification for that phrase is a singularly weak one, and I think the
right hon. Gentleman could make out a better case for the Opposition in moving the rejection of this Bill if he were able to eliminate the personal factor, which so often incites him when he is discussing questions of Free Trade.
As I say, the Leader of the Opposition, having deliberately last week expressed his opinion in favour of the abolition of blind booking and block booking, really the only question which the Government need seriously consider is whether the criticisms that have been made against the proposals regarding the quota are justified. The Leader of the Opposition, I think, regarded those proposals as in the nature of a bounty. I was not surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead found it a little difficult to know whether the Leader of the Opposition was in favour of a bounty or not. I have looked at the report of his speech, and I think it is quite plain that he was prepared to support a bounty on two conditions, first, that it was extended to the exhibitor. and, secondly, that it was for a limited period. It is a little surprising to me to hear the right hon. Gentleman advancing those opinions, but I believe the House as a whole would much prefer the suggestion, which is being adopted from the Report of the Imperial Conference Committee, of a quota than any bounty, even though limited to a term of four or five years, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The other criticisms which have proceeded from the Opposition have been mutually destructive. One says you cannot produce films in this country, because the atmospheric conditions do not permit of it, and that you may do what you will with a quota, but you will never produce a good film. Another Member of the Opposition,, as usual, supplied an answer to that The hon. Member, who spoke with artistic knowledge on this question, said he totally differed from the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day), and that the facilities for producing films in this country were just as good as the facilities in any other country in the world. All that was needed was an artistic touch, and skill and efficiency in the industry. It is quite true the hon. Member raised our hopes a little in his opening sentences by saying that he was going to suggest a remedy for the
evils from which the industry was suffering, but when he came to the end of his speech, he sat down with no other practical suggestion to make except that you must employ artistic methods to produce artistic films.
I think it is agreed that the good film can be produced in this country as far as atmospheric conditions are concerned. It is practically agreed that we have the artistic talent in this country capable of producing films. It has been said over and over again by numbers of hon. Members that some of the greatest artists in this film industry are British-born subjects, people who have been attracted by the wealth employed in the industry in other countries. When we are asked how it is we have not then produced British films, I think the answer, which has been given many times in the course of this Debate, is that for some reason or other—it does not matter whether it was the War; it does not matter what the reason is, if it be the fact—that for some reason or other the British film-producing industry has suffered practical submergence. It has been submerged by the American film, and to a less extents by other foreign films. The blind booking, and the block booking, are not unconnected with it. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition cannot divide this problem into two parts, and say he is in favour of abolishing blind booking but is not in favour of the quota. The blind booking or the block booking is the practice which has made it impossible for the British film industry, once it has got behind in the race, ever to catch up again. It is no use the British film producer making a tolerably good film if he finds there is not a market for it.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley suggested that blind booking is not unknown in other walks of life. He said that he is often asked to write an article for a newspaper, and receives a cheque, I understood, before even the newspaper knows what he is going to say. I think we generally know what he is likely to say. But, apart from that, let me suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to turn an honest penny by writing articles, shall I say about Mr. Cook, and he finds that the columns of the newspaper have been already booked up by Mr. Cook for 12 months ahead. I
wonder whether he would be in favour of blind booking or advance booking in such circumstances? Anybody who considers and understands what advance booking and blind booking have done for the American film producers, must be aware of the fact that the British film-producing industry has not a chance under the conditions which exist to-day, however favourable the other circumstances are in which films may be produced. the Government have proposed, therefore, not to stop half-way, having abolished blind booking, but to give the industry the encouragement which the unhappy condition of the industry requires.
It has been more than once asked, and I do not deny with some show of reason, that you may produce numbers of films, but how are you going to insure the production of good films'? The underlying suggestion of a question of that sort seems to be that the films which are going to be displaced are good films. It is a fundamentally false assumption. There is no suggestion that this Bill is going to keep out the super-films about which we have heard so much. There is no intention to make it impossible for the exhibitors or the renters to give to the public those films the names of which are household words at the present time. The films of which we are thinking today as fit to be displaced by British films are those dull', dreary, inartistic films, which too often fill the bill in the smaller cinemas up and down the country, and if you once realise that the great bulk of the films shown in this country are not the first class, the super-films, the objection to which I referred, that you do not necessarily produce good films because you produce large numbers of films at once disappears.
There is one provision in the Bill which has been overlooked, I think, in this connection. Hon. Members will observe that the Bill provides that the quota for the exhibitors lags a year behind the quota for the renters. As respects the year ending 31st December, 1928, the quota for the renters will be 7½ per cent., but there will be no quota for the exhibitors until the following year, 1929, and if the renters want the exhibitors to take their films they will have to make some endeavour to produce films which are attractive to the exhibitors. In the following year, 1929, the
routers' quota will be 10 per cent., but the exhibitors' quota will only be 7½ per cent., and so in ordinary progression up to the end of the scheduled time. The fact is, there will he by this arrangement an inducement to the renters to produce films which will be attractive to the exhibitors, and will prevent them from being left with British films which are not sufficiently attractive to induce anybody to take them for exhibition.
There is one other argument to which I would like to refer; it has been mentioned many times in the course of this Debate. It is an argument, which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition advanced for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) followed his example. We have heard it again to-night. It is that if you ask for a quota of British films, there is no reason why you should not ask for a quota of British pictures or British music. I cannot help expressing a little surprise that such experienced debaters should be caught in that old trap of a false analogy. There is nothing so misleading as false analogies. For one thing, the film industry differs from the producing of paintings in that finance is invariably associated with it. Vast sums of money are required to produce a film. You do not produce pictures by a vast outlay of capital. Then the taste of the public is sufficient to lead to the production by characteristic British schools both of music and of painting. The film-producing industry is different. Whether it is due to the requirements of finance, or to the business instinct of the American, somehow or other the British film has not had a fair chance, and this Bill is designed to give a fair chance, which, we believe, will be given.

Major CRAWFURD: What about the case of British opera?

8.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No doubt the case of British opera is a little nearer the case of films, but it is not of quite the same importance as films, partly because the film industry employs a considerable amount of labour and partly because British opera has not 8.0 p.m. the same value for propaganda purposes that the film has. I should like to refer to that question of propaganda. My right hon.
Friend the President of the Board of Trade introduced this Bill largely on the grounds that it had been reported to him by Trade Commissioners from the Dominions that the American films had a very insidious effect in displacing British goods. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley rather laughed at the idea that films should be regarded as a sort of commercial traveller for the British nation. I do not know that it is such an ignoble object that the quality of British goods should be recommended, if possible, by the films shown all over the world. It may not be the chief object of the film, but if it is going to have any effect upon industry we think that that effect should be rather in favour of British industry than of American industry. I think perhaps the effect upon employment has been a little overlooked. We are at the beginning of the scientific development of the film industry. There is nothing which would have had so much effect on the optical industry as the development of the British films. The scientific and technical industries connected with film producing will benefit if we can transfer at any rate a small portion of the production of films to this country.
It has been suggested that there would not be a quota sufficient for the films that will have to be shown, but may I give the House some figures to show that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley was inaccurate in his predictions? In 1927 there were 40 British films of 6,000 to 8,000 feet already completed, and other shorter films. In New Zealand, six full length films are in this year's programme. In Australia 14 full length films were produced in 1926 and in South Africa six full length films are expected to be produced in the first year after this Bill comes into operation, making a total of something like 60 films available for 1928. That is more than sufficient to provide the films which will have to be taken by the renters in order to satisfy the quota under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley was apparently unaware of these figures or he would not have suggested that there would not be the films available to comply with the require ments of the Bill. The position being, as I have already stated, that the industry is in a bad condition; everybody having
considered it for a great many years with a view of discovering some remedy; the Imperial Conference having suggested this particular method; the trade, as the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) pointed out, having recommended this particular method, and a quota even more severe than we propose, there has been a complete absence in this Debate of any alternative suggestion. There has been some vague reference to the need for allowing skill and efficiency to play their part; some reference to the power of artistic films to satisfy the British public; something about the right of the British public to see what films they like, but there has not been one single suggestion from any of the critics of this Bill, from either part of the Opposition, for displacing a single foreign film in favour of British films. In the face of those facts, which are beyond dispute, the Government think that this Bill still holds the field. We are gratified to think that from the Liberal party there has been one Member who has spoken whole-heartedly in favour of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) need not be afraid that we shall found any great anticipations on the fact that he was able to support us in regard to this Bill. I think that anybody who has not been misled by prejudices about Free Trade, which has really nothing to do with this Bill, and anyone who faces the facts, will realise that it is necessary to do something to get rid of a state of things which everybody deplores and I hope that they will be able to give this Bill their support on the Second Reading. Fears have been expressed as to what may happen in 1936. If in 1936 those fears are shown to be well founded, I presume that this House will have an opportunity of re-considering its opinion. Until then we recommend this Bill to the House as the most hopeful proposal yet devised for dealing with a state of things which everybody deplores.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman was rather surprised because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said that the Government would be unduly influenced by the Federation of British Industries. I have in my hand a cutting from a morning
paper in which they reproduce a letter sent by the Federation to an hon. Member who is requested to support this Bill. I do not for one moment suggest that he would be influenced by this kind of thing, but here we nave one of the directors of the Federation of British Industries promising an hon. Member that he would use his influence to have that hon. Member called in support of the Bill. I do not suggest that the Government had anything directly to do with this, but it shows that the Federation of British Industries has sought to exercise its influence on our Debate on this Bill. I think every hon. Member will agree with me that that sort of thing is highly objectionable and should be resented in all parts of the House. I regret that this kind of outside influence is attempted. The Solicitor-General and the President of the Board of Trade have referred to me in their speeches as having taken some interest in this matter in the past. That is so. I am afraid I am one of the perpetrators of this Bill. It may be said that it is my child but, as so often happens, we do not know how the child will turn out. I agree with what has been said as to the propaganda value of British films, but the introduction of the quota system will defeat its object, as two Members of the Unionist party, the hon. Baronet the Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) have said. The only other hon. Member with practical knowledge who has spoken in favour of the Bill is the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine). I can quite understand his pride in his family connection with the film. We say, however, that the quota will defeat the object which the Government have in view. It is not so much that we want the British film shown in this country, but we want to get the British film shown overseas, in the Colonies, in India and in the Dominions. But the quota will make a sheltered industry, and, probably, therefore, for that very reason, an inefficient industry.
We have been twitted with having no alternative. I propose in the moment or two left to me to give a practical alternative. Anyone who has listened to this Debate must see that the real need is in regard to finance. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have been
accused of making speeches full of Anglophobia, but that is not their real objection to this Bill. It is that British Alms coming from overseas are better than those produced in this country, and the reason for that is money. The American bankers have been more elastic than our bankers and they have given support to the industry The great super-film from Hollywood is not an American film but an international film. The industry is in the hands of an international race, the Jews. It is none the worse for that, but it will be realised that the real need in this matter is finance. It is held that this quota will attract finance into the industry. I am not certain that it will. I am not certain that it will encourage the production of British films which will be able to force their way into the highly organised markets overseas. That is what is wanted from a propaganda point of view and that is what we are not certain of getting.
I have put my alternative proposal forward both inside and outside the House for some years. I think I was one of the first to speak on this subject in the House. What is really needed is finance, and there the Government could have helped a long time ago under the provisions of the Trade Facilities Act. This year we are building two battleships costing nearly £7,500,000 each; nearly £15,000,000 of money. One-tenth of that money, given at a low rate of interest to the film producing industry in this country three years ago, might have enabled that industry to get on its feet.

The industry will need finance to be able to force its way into the market. There is no guarantee that American capital will not come here and control firms established in this country. That is what has been done in Germany. America controls 50 per cent. of the German film producing firms. The ILKA. Company, the German company that produced "Metropolis," and other films is controlled by American capital. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should have some fear that, as that has been the result of the quota in Germany, it may well be the result of the quota here, and there is no guarantee that that will not be the result. The definition of a British film could be met and the requirements could be met by any acute American business men acting as agents for the American capitalists over here, and that is where your propaganda film comes in. What guarantee is there that if you have these so-called British supervising companies they will make any real attempt to force their way into the foreign market? That is our objection to the Bill, and that is why we shall vote against it. It is not because we do not want to see British films; above all it is not because we do not realise the propaganda value of British films abroad. But while we are in favour of making illegal blind booking, we have no hesitation in voting against this Bill to-night.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 135.

division No. 54.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clarry, Reginald George


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Albery, Irving James
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cockerill, Brig.-Generai Sir G. K.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'I)
Briggs, J. Harold
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cope, Major William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bullock, Captain M.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Apsley, Lord
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burman, J. B.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Calne, Gordon Hall
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Baln[...]el, Lord
Campbell, E. T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Carver, Major W. H.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Berry, Sir George
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Bethel, A.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Eills, R. G.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Salmon, Major I.


Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Lamb, J. O.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fermoy, Lord
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandon, Lord


Fielden, E. B.
Litter, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Savery, S. S.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Skelton, A. N.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Looker, Herbert William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Luce, Maj-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smithers, Waldron


Ganzonl, Sir John
Lumley, L. R.
Sprat, Sir Alexander


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gates, Percy
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Gault, Liout.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Captain H.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Gower, Sir Robert
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcoim
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grace, John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Templeton, W. P.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Tinne, J. A.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Merriman, F. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hall, Capt. W. D.A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hammersley, S. S.
Monseli, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waddington, R.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Harland, A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Warrende, Sir Victor


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Watts, D. T.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Wells, S. R.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nuttall, Ellis
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pilcher, G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wise, Sir Fredric


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Withers, John James


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Radford, E. A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Huntingfield, Lord
Raine, W.
Womersley, W. J.


Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldi'n&p'bl's)
Remnant, Sir James
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wragg, Herbert


Jacob, A. E.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L.



Jephcott, A. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rye, F. G.
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Captair Margesson.


NOES


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Grundy, T. W.


Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hllisbro')
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Ammon, Charles George
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Baker, Walter
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hardle, George D.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Percy A.


Barnes, A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Hayday, Arthur


Barr, J.
Dennison, R.
Hayes, John Henry


Batey, Joseph
Duckworth, John
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bondfield, Margaret
England, Colonel A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Brlant, Frank
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Broad, F. A.
Forrest, W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bromfield, William
Glbbins, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Charleton, H. C.
Greenall, T.
Kelly, W. T.


Clowes, S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kennedy, T.


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Groves, T.
Kirkwood, D.




Lansbury, George
Ritson, J,
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlisbro. W.)


Lawrence, Susan
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Lawson, John James
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W. R., Elland)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow]


Lee, F.
Rose, frank H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lindley, F. W.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Townend, A. E.


Livingstone, A. M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Lowth, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Viant, S. P.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Scurr, John
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


MacLaren, Andrew
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


March, S.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Maxton, James
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Montague, Frederick
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Welsh, J. C.


Morris, R. H.
Sitch, Charles H.
Westwood, J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smillie, Robert
Wiggins, William Martin


Murnin, H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianeliy)


Oliver, George Harold
Sne[...]l, Harry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Owen, Major G.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palln. John Henry
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Paling, W.
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell
Wright, W.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Potts, John S.
Sullivan, J.



Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Riley, Ben
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

TRUSTS.

Mr. THOMAS HENDERSON: I beg to move,
That this House, realising the inevitable economic tendency under the present capitalist system towards the formation and development of trusts, combines, cartels, and rings, and the necessity for protecting users and consumers from the evils arising therefrom, as, for example, the prevailing right prices for such necessities as food, fuel, and building materials, calls upon the Government to introduce legislation providing effective public control over the operations of these organisations.
I consider it a great privilege to submit a Motion of this kind, because I am fully convinced that the time is opportune for a discussion on the remarkable growth of combines and trusts in this country, and I am convinced that we are facing a crisis in the industrial condition of our country as we find it to-day. I am supported in that belief by the reading of a book, of which I suppose nearly every hon. Member in this House has, like myself, seen a copy, a book written by one of the leading industrialists of America, a man who is recognised as free from party politics, who has given a life's service to his own particular line of industry, who advises the industrialists of this country and of the world to face the present position, and who draws a comparison between the industrial revolution and the position with which we are faced to-day. I refer to a book written
by Mr. Filene. I do not suppose the captains of industry in this country will be prepared to accept the advice he has given. From our knowledge of them, nothing more unlikely can be expected. I wish to draw some conclusions and make some comparisons between the period of the industrial revolution and to-day. We can easily find excuses for the evils of the industrial revolution period. At that time there was no definite public opinion, but we cannot shelter ourselves behind that position to-day, when we have evidence of every kind of the growth and development of trusts in this country. When we understand the trouble of the Governments of that period and make a comparison with the position of this Government, there is no possible excuse for the present Government who have a tremendous majority and if they cared, could undertake controlling legislation-. If we have studied the evils of the industrial revolution we could excuse past Governments, because out of the industrial revolution a new political force arose. The manufacturing class and the machine-owning class, who later on were known as the great Liberal party, were coming into their own, and the keen political warfare going on no doubt kept the Governments of that day from observing and analysing the effects of the industrial revolution. Now the party whose slogan for so many years was "Free competition is the life of trade" are fading away and slowly dying, and the irony of the position is that we have seen in our time two of their greatest leaders become converted
to the policy of their political opponents. One of them now at rest and the other never at rest.
I wish to direct attention to the evils of the present system by a reference to the great problem which has been facing us during the last five or six years. No question has been discussed more than unemployment, very largely in conjunction with the question of the housing of the working classes. I ask the House to consider the evils of trustification from that point of view. When we are discussing the problem of unemployment hon. Members on the Conservative benches generally advise us that the only cure for unemployment is greater production. The Prime Minister, in a speech at Scarborough, told the people of this country that if they produced more we should be able to hold our own in the industrial world. If hon. Members believe that is the cure, they will support this Motion, because what would be the use of working people using every ounce of brain and muscle to increase production if the great combines and trusts made it their business to restrict production?
The textile industry is well combined. It is a powerful combination of all those engaged in the different forms of production in that industry. They have decided that only 30 per cent. of their capacity of production will be allowed to be produced. If the textile workers are prepared to do all they can to increase production and the combine refuses to allow that production to come outside their works, all the efforts of the workers will have been in vain. More than that, it means more unemployment, because the power of the combines is such that if the workpeople produce more and stocks are increased the textile industry obtains the power to reserve that stock and wait for more suitable markets. So far as unemployment is concerned, increased production by the workpeople is no use, because of this power of the combines and the trusts to restrict output. It is no use the workpeople aiming at greater production while that power lies in the hands of the combines. I would reinforce my argument by evidence given by Mr. John Hilton, the statistical officer of the Ministry of Labour, before the Standing Committee on Trusts in 1919. He said:
There were over 500 large capitalist combines operating in such a way as to
exert a substantial influence on the flow of industry and upon prices.
If the cotton industry are able to keep down production to the extent of one-third of their capacity, and you multiply that instance by the 500 referred to, one can easily see how tremendous is the danger in our midst. I understand many Members in this House know a great deal more about this side of the question than I do, because not only are they actively engaged with the trusts with which they are connected, but they are forming other trusts and monopolies every year; and it would have been a very good thing for this Debate if some of those right hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite had been in their places to-night to tell us what is the great idea behind the trusts, and whether they can prove to this House that they are for the good of the community. I am going to refer to a trust that creates more danger and does more harm than any I know. One of the questions, which I have so often raised in this House, is in regard to houses for the working classes. We are told that the desire of the Government is to cut down the cost of houses to something like an economic rent. That, I think, is utterly impossible until you get some further control over the power of the trusts, because I find in a report that was prepared for the Committee on Trusts, in connection with combinations in building material trades, that the possibilities of bringing house rents down to a reasonable level is almost impossible. The responsible person who prepared this report makes it very clear that the light castings industry, which is a complete monopoly, is one of the monopolies started in 1911, and by 1912 it had under its control 95 per cent. of the whole of that industry. In the report to which I have referred, it states:
One of the most powerful associations, whose membership includes manufacturers' goods needed in the construction of workmen's cottages, had until recently at the head of its rules:

'(1) The object of the association has in view is that of raising and keeping up the price to the buyer of goods and articles made and/or supplied by its members.
(2) This shall be done by means of pooling arrangements so controlling production that prices will rise naturally and inevit-
317
ably, as they always must do, when supply is brought into equilibrium with or is ever so little below demand.'
This association has within its membership over 90 per cent. of the manufacturers of the class of goods thus controlled in output and in price. It affords a concrete example of the operation of the first purposes of combination, namely, the limitation of competition, the control of output, and the increasing of prices.
That statement is made and a table is drawn up which shows conclusively that if there is to be no control over trusts of this kind, then there is no hope of catching up the necessary demand in connection with houses for the working classes. He says:
We take the proportion of 1464 shown in Diagram II as controlled and calculated the cost per cottage at £36 10s. 0d.
He assumes that an increase of 5 per cent. would increase the price of materials per cottage by £l 16s. 6d., and per 300,000 cottages it would mean £547,500; 10 per cent. an increase of £3 13s. 0d. per cottage of £1,095,000 per 30,000 cottages; 15 per cent. increase would mean £5 9s. 6d. per cottage or per 300,000 cottages £1,642,000. Then he completes that statement by saying:
These figures indicate that even if the proportion of materials at present subject to full control is not increased, the effect of combinations in the building trades on the cost of cottage construction is probably (substantial even now. It is hardly likely that associations whose primary object is the control of prices would continue to exist unless they could raise prices by at least 10 per cent.
If ever we are going to get rid of this problem of providing the necessary cottages required by the working classes, we must control the industry supplying the materials. Here we have an industry entirely controlled. By its pooling system it safeguards all those who come under it, and an increase of 20 per cent. in the cost would make it impossible for any local authority to enter upon cottage building upon a large scale. These are two of the cases in which we believe the trust and the combines operate against the best interests of the community. We are giving the House an opportunity to-night of deciding whether legislation shall be introduced to exercise a ton-trolling power so that the benefit of any new developments may come to all the people in the country. I do not suggest that the Labour party are against all
combines and trusts to the extent that all within a combine is wrong. We believe that the original idea of the combine and trust in so far as it eliminated waste and made for greater production and greater co-ordination of services, we are entirely satisfied that it is a necessary instrument in industry, and we are prepared to use it provided we have some controlling power to make it impossible for the combine and trust to abuse the powers they now possess.
Believing that what I suggest ought to be done, and believing that if it is not done we shall be allowing the trust and the combine to become the masters of the people of this country, our desire is to take that power from them and make them the servants of the people. This is exactly the difference between trusts and combines and private enterprise and the co-operative movement which I have the honour to represent. In the co-operative movement we do injury to none, but in the case of private enterprise and the trust and combine, they use their power for their own particular benefit. Increasing their profits is their only object and in doing so they injure a great number of the majority of the people of this country. In comparing the two institutions, I think one might do it best by making a comparison—

Mr. HANNON: I am Lorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but will he give us some precise example of what he intends to convey by saying that they are making profits at the expense of the community?

Mr. HENDERSON: I will give an example. The soap trust is one of the greatest of all the trusts in this country. The soap trust, in increasing the number of firms under its control, has extended to them all the power of the controlling firm", all the power of Lever Brothers, and has told the shareholders of several of the companies it has taken under its control that it will guarantee to them as much as 37 per cent. on their shares. That is contained in the evidence before the sub-committee appointed by the special Committee who were reporting to the full Committee on trusts. It is distinctly stated that, in the case, if I remember aright, of the firm of John Knight & Company, the chairman, at a meeting of the shareholders of that firm, told the meeting that he had con-
sistently refused to have anything at all to do with the combine, but the magnificent offer made by Messrs. Lever Brothers—by the Lever combine—was one that was so generous that he would advise his shareholders to accept the offer. In the case of another firm, 25 per cent. was guaranteed for ever, as long as it was possible to guarantee it. The words used were "in perpetuity." Twenty-five per cent. was guaranteed in the one case, and 37 per cent. in the other.

Colonel WOODCOCK: If I may interrupt the hon. Member, is he not referring to the retailers?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): Hon. Members had better reserve their remarks.

Mr. HENDERSON: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there is plenty of evidence; indeed, what embarrasses one in a Debate of this kind is the amount of evidence. It is because I only desire to take up a reasonable amount of time that I am only quoting the two firms I have mentioned. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is here, and he is a high authority. I hope he will be able to tell the House, before this Debate is finished, what the Government are prepared to do with regard to this evil, because the Prime Minister has given pledges with regard to this, and I want to find out from the hon. Gentleman whether the Prime Minister intends to keep his pledges. The Prime Minister made a statement, just as he made other statements that have never been fulfilled, and we want to ask to-night if he is prepared to carry out the statement he made in the Albert Hall on the 4th December, 1924. It was the Victory Meeting, and he may have been just a little bit excited, so that we are willing to excuse him to some extent; but this is what he said:
We have to force a way through the jungle of vested interests"—
This is a Tory Prime Minister, and we would expect that, when a Tory Prime Minister makes a statement of this kind, there would be something to show for it, that he would be prepared, at least, to
make some attempt to carry through the pledge he gives. He said on that occasion:
We have to force a way through the jungle of vested interests, but we have behind us, in that magnificent recruitment of young members, sufficient driving force to put anything through.
It is quite possible that, in that hour of victory, he said things which he found it impossible to carry through. I do not believe for a moment that there is any Prime Minister, at least so far as I can judge, who is likely to appear in the Conservative ranks, who will be able to attempt in the slightest degree to influence legislation that would take any control over the trusts of this country. That is just about the last thing I would expect. The Prime Minister spoke again in Sheffield, in December, 1924, and he said:
I have undertaken, if we are returned to power, to have a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes of the rise in the cost of food, and I will guarantee this, that if, as a result of the inquiry, it is discovered that any practical step can be taken to cure these ills, we will take it.
No steps have been taken to cure any of the ills arising out of this change in system. No Act of Parliament has been passed, there is no law that will control in the slightest degree the power and influence for evil that exists in the trust and combine system. Believing that to be true, we believe that the only possible thing we can do is to attempt to-influence hon. Members on the other side, to attempt to influence legislation in this House. If we can do that, we shall be doing something for the good of this country. If we fail to exercise any influence, we can only wait for the time when we shall control in this House—and I believe it is not far distant—and when we shall have the power to carry through legislation; and I want to make it perfectly clear that, that power having been given to us, we will do our very best to take the evil out of the trust and combine system, and make it the servant of the community.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not suppose that any subject could have been chosen which would illustrate better than this the really fundamental difference which there is between the party which sits on these benches and
the party which sits on the opposite benches. We know that the inevitable economic tendency of the time is towards the growth of trust, combines and cartels. We know that that has been going on for some time, particularly since the heavy industries of the world have become more and more the dominant factor. As far back as 1883 we had the beginnings in this country of attempts to regulate prices. For example, we had the British Railway Railmakers' Association. Although it had a chequered career in some of the earlier years of its existence, it found that it was able to get on to an effective basis when it concerned itself, not only with production in England, but with the regulation of prices and production as far as Germany and Belgium were concerned, and in 1907, for a period, an agreement was entered into under which the British were to have 37–36 per cent. of the export trade, the United States 25–7, Germany 2013, Belgium 12–34, and at that time, when France was very much behind in the steel making industry, they were allowed 4–47 per cent., with a guaranteed minimum of 59,500 tons. We see the effect of this in the competition between the various firms in each country, because in 1909 only 474 tons of steel rails came from America to Europe, despite the great production of steel frails in that country, and this syndicate controlled practically the whole of the output of the world, because the firms outside the syndicate in every part of the world only accounted for 3–2 per cent of the production. Since then we find that this regulation has continued. That is admitted in City circles. I find that as recently as 28th October, the "Financial News," which will be acknowledged as an authority and in no sense of the word a Socialist paper making wild statements, says:
Regulation has gone farthest in those trades which are sheltered, or in other words are concerned mainly with the home market, for instance, building materials, wall papers, numerous food products, proprietary articles and possibly railway transport and banking, in addition to the subsidiary processes of textiles such as bleaching, dyeing and threadmaking. In these cases rings or protection associations may exercise an unofficial though powerful influence, or at all events competition is limited to the extent that all the parties usually raise or lower
their basic rates simultaneously and have at any given time a tautly agreed level below which they will not undercut each other.
One thing that has made itself more apparent since the War has been the considerable concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands. I know that quite recently the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has referred to the extension of individual shareholders, and no doubt it is true that you can find a large number of individual persons who have small investments, because one of the things the War did was to teach a number of small people the idea of investing their savings and to turn more and more attention to industrial securities than they had done before. But although there may be those investments, the persons who invest have absolutely no control over their capital at all. It is true they may have a vote at the meeting of the company, but all that that really comes to is that, if the company is prosperous, they receive their dividends and if it is not they can howl at the directors, but they will find they will have to submit to some scheme of reconstruction which those who dominate the concern have agreed to carry out already. One thing that happened during the War is that whereas European nations were engaged in a struggle for victory and in developing their armaments, they were not able to pay very-much attention to technical processes for peaceful industry, but America came later into the War and, moreover, did not contribute the amount of man power that the European countries did. The consequence was that America has been able to develop its technical processes while, for a time, Europe was, so to speak, quiet in that regard. The result has been that on the Continent there has been a corresponding attempt, particularly in Germany, to catch up to the development in America. So to-day we find, as the "Financial News" remarks, that
The most successful combinations in unsheltered trades are usually permanent organisations which have taken deliberate 6teps to safeguard their position abroad as well as in this country. The tobacco and soap trades are cases in point. The chemical trade has taken a bolder step towards. closer organisation.
9.0.p.m.
That is worth looking into for a minute. Take the last great trust that has been formed in this country—Im-perial Chemicals, Limited. We find, first of all, that the capital of this concern has been increased from £38,225,942 to £56,802,996. That is an increase of £18,000,000, without a single penny being subscribed of new capital, but simply brought about by a process of exchange of shares in the four great companies which make up this trust—Brunner Mond and Co., Nobel Industries, the United Alkali Company, and the British Dyestuffs Corporation. This trust is represented as being largely a British enterprise, but all these companies are interested in China, in Japan, in India, in Australasia, in Malaya, Mexico, South America and many European countries.
One thing I wish to call attention to in regard to the growth of concerns of this kind is that by that increase of capital without any new capital being put in, the workers in those industries have to earn the dividend on the extra £18,000;000 during the ensuing year. We are told by the chairman of the company, a distinguished Member of this House, that the new combine is not
intended to destroy the identity or the autonomy of the individual units. The board of the new company will form a supervising and conne[...]ing link in finance and policy in exchange for knowledge and information, and will enable the British chemical industry to deal with similar groups in other countries on terms of equality.
If this concern is not going to destroy the autonomy of the individual units I fail to see how the board will be able to form a supervising and connecting link in finance and policy. Further, the German chemical combine has welcomed the formation of the trust and put forward the idea that in the future instead of war there will be co-operation between the countries. This was hailed by the "Manchester Guardian" Commercial Supplement as a British trust, and they said:
The chemical industry is notoriously greatly handicapped in several directions by the excessive plant constructed to meet war requirements, but combination ought now to assist in the elimination or the utilisation for other purposes of this surplus manufacturing capacity.
That is one of the things that results from the development of huge trusts of this kind. They will close down whole factories. In fact, that is admitted as being one of the objects of the formation of the trust. As a matter of fact, the Chairman a day or two ago referred to some fears that there may be and indicates that there 'will have to be adjustments. But the great question comes to this, that the extension of a trust of this kind means in the end more and more unemployment in the industry. The whole object of the trust is to cut down the cost of production to a minimum and to eliminate what they regard as superfluous plant. If that firm enters into competition with similar firms abroad the cost of production has to be brought down, and we shall be told the only way to bring it down is by [...]flutting wages. If they do not do it in that way they will enter into an agreement with the foreign trust, and there will be the same result, that there will be the closing down of plant in the various countries, and so we shall have an increase of unemployment.
The extension of trusts is going on not only in this country, but everywhere: it is international. There is a particular German trust named Hugo Stinnes, Limited. This concern seems to be a collector and picker-up of unconsidered trifles in the industrial world. They own coal mines in the Ruhr, oil mills at Hamburg, shipping concerns at Hamburg, films and tannery at Potsdam, book-publishing at Berlin, and also newspapers. They have three newspapers in Vienna which, of course, are very handy for the purpose of controlling and educating public opinion. Newspapers of that kind are not unknown in this country. In North Germany this trust own landed estates, in Czechoslovakia they have sugar works, in Sweden a shipyard and in Naples an aluminium factory. [Interruption.] The hon. Member will have his opportunity. I do not interrupt hon. Members opposite when they are speaking, and I would ask the hon. Member to extend to me the same courtesy which I extend to others. This trust have also a controlling interest in Siemens-Rhine-Elbe Sehukert Union, and under one management they have also collieries, blast furnaces, steel works, rolling mills, machine factories, paper mills and china factories. Some hon. Members may say
those are Germans. If we look up the career of one or two magnates in this country such as the right hon. Lord Inchcape for example, and we refer to "Who's Who," we find that from the various directorships which he holds he, too, is a picker-up of unconsidered trifles, just as the late Hugo Stinnes was.
These firms and trusts very often come forward in their patriotic way in countries other than their own. A little while ago, according to a report issued by the German Metal Workers' Union, a municipality in Holland was approached by a dockyard firm who said: "If you will assist us, we can get a contract to build two ships for the navigation of the Rhine. The wages which we can afford to pay are low; we admit they are too low, but we are a Dutch firm and if we get the contracts it will bring money to Dutchmen and keep them employed. Therefore, if you as a municipality can do something to help us, we will get the contract." The municipality agreed to vote what was called a productive dole of 12½ per cent. on the wages, the contract was secured and Dutchmen rejoiced, but shortly afterwards they found that the Dutch shipyard was really a branch of Messrs. Mathias Stinnes of Mullheim-on the-Ruhr, which was a German firm masquerading as a Dutch firm. This masquerading goes on all over the world.
One of the effects sought by trusts is to increase the productivity of the individual workman, to develop the intensity of labour, to produce a lowering of wages and an increase of unemployment. In the United States of America I find, according to a report of the United States Labour Department in 1925, that the productivity of the American worker in 1925 as compared with 1914, taking 1914 as 100, was in the automobile industry 310 greater, in the iron and steel industry 150 greater, and in coke 154 greater. Hon. Members opposite may say, "Quite right. We want more production." But these various concerns take care when it suits their purpose to restrict production and even stop production. I can quote a case in regard to cotton in America. I will not quote from a Socialist newspaper but from the "Cotton Times," which says:
The resolute and vigorous attitude of the local banks throughout the cotton-growing area constituted one of the decisive factors in promoting the success of the com paign for restricting production. It was impossible for the farmers to secure from
the dealers advances and credits enabling them to plant as much land as usual. They had to restrict the areas under cultivation and to bow to the imperious necessity of a radical diminution of production, as preached with so much energy and impressiveness by the American Cotton Association. Worthy of special attention is the fact that in a very large number of fields cultivation was abandoned after the fields had been sown. This, too, was due to the failure of the farmers to secure loans and credits needed by them for the continuance of the work of cultivation. The farmers had spent all their ready cash in preparing the ground and sowing the cotton. When the banks tightened the strings of credit, the cultivators had no option. The prospect of a crop had to be sacrificed in a large proportion of the sown fields.
They were producing the policy of ca' canny. I find also in regard to the International Federation of Flax producers, which has been formed to defend the interests of flax producers, that they had a meeting recently to discuss the cultivation of flax, and it was stated that their first aim must be to restrict production.
We are sometimes told that America is a very prosperous country. [quote the case of America because it is a classical instance of trusts. We are told there is no question of unemployment there, and we are told of motor-cars waiting outside the factories to take the workmen to and fro; but I find that, according to Mr. Bellerby, in his report to the International Labour Office, that there is at least 10 per cent. of American workmen out of work or something like 2,500,000, and from the figures of the Labour Department of America I find that in June of last year in connection with agricultural implements 30 per cent. of the available working force were out of work, while in iron and steel only 81 per cent. were in employment. Further than that, there is a considerable speeding up and growth of accidents throughout America. The United States Commissioner for Labour says that in his judgment, although there are no statistics of accidents published in America, accidents are increasing, and he goes on to say:
The reason is that there is a general speeding up of workers, both skilled and unskilled—a production per man hour increase which registers a greater number of accidents.
From an employers' paper, the "Rhein-land Westphalian Times," I find that in
the Ruhr coal-mining industry the production per shift, per man, in October, 1913, was 903 kilogrammes, and in October, 1926, 1,190 kilogrammes, although the wages of miners had fallen by 20 per cent., unemployment had increased by 200,000 men, while the production per worker had increased by 17 per cent.
We also find more and more that international agreements and understandings are entered into between the captains of these various great enterprises in the different nations in order to be against the worker the whole of the time. At a meeting of the governing body of the International Labour Office in January, 1924, Mr. Pinot, the Secretary of the Comite des Forges, who represents the French employers at the International Labour Office, waxed quite eloquent, saying that the workers ought to work a longer day in Germany. Although he was French, he said that, and he said it for the simple reason that he acted as the late Hugo Stinnes had acted in the Economic Council of the German Reich when he demanded the abolition of the 8-hour day. "Le Temps," the leading French newspaper, commented on that and said:
That is the Hugo Stinnes gospel, and it is the only gospel which is genuinely international.
I could go on multiplying instances to show how the development of trusts means, so far as the workman is concerned, a greater intensity of labour and a greater risk of unemployment than exists at the moment. As far as the consumer is concerned it means that prices are all the time rigged against him in the interests of profit mongering pure and simple.
There was a time when certain persons who were regarded as captains of industry wanted to do something. To-day we have captains of business who are out to do everybody. This Motion marks the fundamental difference between us and the Government. I have read notices in the public Press that we are a very ineffective Opposition, and one of the reasons may be that we on this side of the House will not play the stupid game of sham politics which has been played for so many years in this country. We
who belong to the working classes and have had to go through the hell of factory and workshop, walk about unemployed until the iron has entered into our souls; we who, at street corners and elsewhere, have built, up the party which now sits on these benches are not going to play a beautiful game of politics so that Gentlemen on the other side shall sit there for five years and then our turn will come; turn and turn about. We are here because the Motion expresses the fundamental difference between our outlook and the Government. We want industry organised as a public service for the community. so that every man, woman and child shall have an opportunity for a happy life, and not be organised for the purpose of profit-mongering and the slavery of the working classes.

Mr. ROY WILSON: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House", to the and of the Question, and to add, instead thereof, the words
declines to commit itself to a 6ystem of general control of industry, which would be costly, cumbrous, and hampering to trade, and which is intended to lead to the nationalisation of industry.
I should like to assure the two hon. Members who have opened this Debate that I do not intend to attempt to be provocative. I want, if I can, to deal with my Amendment from the business point of view, as I see it. I do not want the House to understand by my Amendment that necessarily I believe all trusts and combines are for the good of the community. I do not think that at all, but I see no reason for Government interference with trusts which are now operating. Although I listened with a great deal of care to the two hon. Members, nothing they have said has led me to believe that there is any necessity to-day for Government interference with the trusts and combines with which we are familiar in this country. It is quite clear from the statement of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) that what he really means by the Motion, and he made it clear in his remarks, was that he wanted to see the industries of this country nationalised and placed under Government control. That is just where I join issue with the hon. Member, for I am perfectly convinced that any step towards the nationalisation of our great
industries would be harmful to the country and would not be for the benefit of the workers and the people generally. My own view on the subject of trusts and combines is that, unless they are thoroughly well-managed and produce and sell cheaply—that is an important point—they can be far more damaging to those who run them, the capitalists, than to the consumers. If anything is wanted to reinforce that point of view, it is the reference that has been made by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Scurr) to the trusts controlled by the late Hugo Stinnes in Germany. The hon. Member could not have been aware when talking about this trust of the fact that, when Mr. Stinnes died his affairs were found to be in the most hopeless confusion and caused a great deal of anxiety to his executors and the banks in Germany, who were engaged for a long time in the painful process of separating the chaff from the corn. During the last two years I have listened in this House to numberless Debates on trade, industry and unemployment, and really I am amazed at what I think is the waste of time when these matters are discussed, because it seems to me that there are certain fundamental issues, certain underlying factors, which must be understood if we are to tackle the great problem of the condition of industry in this country to-day on business lines.
The simple facts are these. For reasons which I shall attempt to define, this country is being shut out of the world's markets. I am convinced from my own observations that that is a plain statement of fact. We are being shut out of the world's markets which used to be ours, and if we are going to get them back we must find out why we are being shut out, whether it is through trusts or combines or something else, and, having ascertained the facts, devote ourselves to the application of the remedies. I am convinced in my own mind that the nationalisation of the industries of this country would not in any way mitigate the evil of unemployment or increase our share of the world's markets. Quite obviously the Motion is directed to finding. some solution for the problem of unemployment, but what is more necessary to-day than anything else is that a solution of this problem should be found by
the people who are engaged in the industries which are now suffering. Masters and men, employers and employed, must possess themselves of the facts underlying our troubles, and it is probably because these facts are so vividly apparent that they are overlooked. That may seem a paradox, but I think it will be found that in many serious and difficult matters, sometimes you are up against your own difficulties and troubles so closely that you tend to get a wrong perspective and lose sight of what really are the proper courses to take. In short, what I think should be done is this: Some means must be found in this country to cheapen the price of our goods by improved organisation, by increased efficiency and by greater output. I want to make my position perfectly clear in saying this. I am dead against any suggestion of a decrease in wages. I do not believe there is the slightest necessity to decrease wages. I believe that if masters and men in the great industries could get together, not to have a vapid talk about nothing, but to consider the factors which are causing our difficulties, it would be found that by increased production, better efficiency and management and greater co-operation on all sides, we could increase our output and greatly decrease the cost of our manufactured articles.
May I pause for one moment to refer to the example cited by the hon. Member for Tradeston in regard to the cotton industry. He pointed out that that industry, which is a great combine, was an example of how things should not be done, in that they had deliberately restricted their output to 30 per cent. of their capacity. I do not think that a mere statement like that is really quite a fair statement of the position. I do not think it gives the House the impression which the House ought to have in considering that great industry because, while I do not profess to be an expert in the cotton trade of Lancashire, I do know that the restriction of output has been deliberately adopted, not for the benefit of the swollen capitalists in the industry but for the benefit of the workers. It has been adopted for this reason, that the great desire of the cotton spinners in Lancashire has been to keep their people employed. Hon Members opposite should realise—for it is perfectly
true—that one of our greatest markets for cotton goods, namely, China, has for some years now been a vanishing market, and that has cut off a great deal of trade from the cotton industry. You will find there, far more than in any other direction, the reason for the decreased output for the textile industry in Lancashire.
I am of the opinion that co-operation, amalgamations and combines, on proper lines, far from being a bad thing for this country, are very often an extremely good thing. But I am equally certain that there is very much more to be achieved by initiative and enterprise. Government control, in my judgment, would kill both initiative and enterprise in the long run. We have to remember that initiative and enterprise on the part of our workers and manufacturers in this country have built up the prosperity of our commercial interests and have placed Great Britain in the place that she did occupy before the War, and any steps which may be taken to kill enterprise and initiative would at the same time gravely react on our commercial position and the prosperity of our people. I do beg the House to remember that our competitors to-day. notably Germany, are under-cutting and under-selling us in various very important markets. Notably is this the case in the steel industry, and the House should remember that that has been done through the very cartels and combinations in Germany which the hon. Member who proposed this Motion would seek to abolish. I should like to cite a case which came to my notice only last month, where a friend of mine in the City of London, who acts as commercial agent for one of the Central American Republics, was asked to obtain tenders for steel rails. Naturally he was most anxious that this order should be placed in this old country of ours. The facts were these. He got tenders for these rails from Germany, Belgium and France, and from several firms in Great Britain, and the British tenders were the highest of the lot, and the result was that the contract went to Germany.
I should like, for a moment, to deal with some of the so-called trusts which
are operating in this country. The hon. Member for Tradeston referred to the soap industry and to Lever Brothers. That is a great trust, but it is a wonderful business. It is a business which employs tens of thousands of people throughout the country and which pays wages to its employes which compare very favourably with the wages of any other commercial employes in this country, and which provides them also with partnership rights if they care to take them. While it is perfectly true.-that this is a great trust—and I am not here to defend Lever Brothers, for I have no interest in them, nor have I any interest to serve in this House except the duties which I try to perform—I want to point out that here is a great concern which, before they amalgamated with all these various concerns throughout the country—Knights, Gossages, Crossfields. Pears, and others—was a concern possessed of great capital and business enterprise, and if these amalgamations had not taken place, the result would have been that in time these firms, which are now still live entities employing large numbers of men, would have been forced out of the soap market by the competition of Lever Brothers, and we should have seen those particular brands of merchandise which those firms make disappear from our overseas markets. I think that would have been regrettable and a mistake.
But there are two other groups of combines and trusts which have not been referred to to-night up to now, but on which, as they may be referred to later, I should like to say a word. They are the banks and the insurance companies. I say with all the seriousness I can command that I am satisfied that the great banks in this country which have formed themselves into powerful combines, and the great insurance companies, have in no way abused their rights, and have been for the great convenience of trade and industry. If proof were wanted, you have got it in those difficult years which succeeded the War, when our financial and banking system in this country stood one of the most serious and devastating tests which any country could ever be called upon to face in a similar direction. Therefore, I contend that when you are talking about trusts and combines it is idle to generalise and
to condemn them as such. I am only sorry that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion have not given me more material than they have on which to reply to the criticisms against these trusts and combines. I should not be in order in referring to one of our great difficulties at any length, namely, the erection of tariff walls in the markets of the word against our manufacturers. We have to remember that we still produce in this country the finest manufactured goods in the world, but the unfortunate fact is that we are not producing cheaply enough. When hon. Gentlemen have said that Government control is necessary for our trade and industry, I think who should do well to examine for a very few moments those countries where Government control has been exercised and see if we cannot draw some inference from those experiences which will be useful to ourselves.
The case of Norway is a very important one, which I commend to the attention of hon. Members. Norway went in for a great policy of nationalising her shipping, and it very nearly brought Norway to bankruptcy. It put many of the hanks in very great difficulties, it caused great disaster in Norway, and I am informed that the results are still being felt. We find exactly the same thing in regard to America. America decided to nationalise shipping and to control all the ships, but she is very glad indeed to be out of it to-day. America has burned her fingers very badly over her nationalisation experiments, and has dropped them. I do not want to be provocative, but there is the case of Russia. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who know Russia and the present condition of Russia know that the efforts of the Soviet Government to nationalise everything have brought misery and penury to the people of Russia. [Interruption.'] That is a plain statement of the fact. We can look nearer home for some similar experiments. I propose, even if it hurts the feelings of the Postmaster-General, to refer to the control by the Government of the telephones. I am one of those, and no doubt there are many others present, who remember well the excellent service we used to get from the National Telephone Company. For a very small fixed sum of £5 a year we got an unlimited service, and we were not
bothered by irritating quarterly accounts for local calls which it is quite impossible for us to verify or check. The National Telephone Company's service was in every way a much better service than that which we have now.
The important thing to remember is this: I am certain that I am voicing tonight the opinion of the whole of the commercial community of this country when I say that the people of this country who are responsible for creating things, for employing labour and manufacturing things, have no faith whatever in Government control. The less we have to do with Government control in business the better it is for the whole community. The amazing thing to me is that hon. Members opposite, and indeed hon. Members in all sections of the House, are perpetually pressing the Government to reduce the cost of administration in the Civil Service, and yet here to-day we have this amazing Motion which, if it were passed, would mean an enormous increase in our Civil Service Estimates, with new Departments, no doubt under the charge of entirely obsolete functionaries, who certainly would do no good for the industry of the country, and would no doubt in a very short time convince the world what a hopeless thing it is for a Government to interfere in business affairs. I would like to ask the hon. Member who introduced the subject a hypothetical question which bears on the subject of this Debate. Suppose that he was ill, and that he called in a specialist to consult him as to what ought to be done for his complaint. What would he say if such a specialist said to him, "Look here, I propose to apply a remedy to your complaint. It is a very serious remedy, the consequences of which I cannot foretell. but I can tell you this, that wherever this remedy has been tried, it has brought disaster and unhappiness to everybody who tried it." That is the position in regard to this Motion.
I am sure that the hon. Member, if he were face to face with the proposal, would be reminded, as I was reminded when I read his Motion first, of a quotation by our great national poet, who had the wonderful faculty of putting sound common sense into beautiful language:
Rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
It has been said by great authorities in this House on more than one occasion
that business men are no good in politics. As a business man, I accept the admonition with, I hope, due humility. But my answer is this: The state of our trade and industry in this country has for the last seven years baffled the politicians of all shades of opinion and all degrees of capacity. They have never found a remedy for our complaint, and in my judgment they never will. The cure for our existing ills in trade and industry is to be found by business men. It will not be found by politicians. It will be found by business men sooner or later, and my great regret is that our business people of all shades of opinion are not taking more steps than they are today to face the facts. I am not one of those who believe that England as a commercial nation is dead and of no account in the world, but I do believe that we are not only asleep, but that we are deaf and blind to the facts that are calling out for solution, and have been calling out for solution during the last seven years. The sooner we face those facts, the better it will be for all of us. I am equally assured in my own mind that if this Motion were carried, it would but add shackles to the struggling hands of industry to-day and would achieve no useful purpose. For all these reasons, which I have imperfectly developed, I am against the Motion, because I think it will do no good, but will do a great deal of harm, and I have pleasure in moving the Amendment which stands in my name.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am particularly gratified to observe that throughout the Debate the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has been present, because of all the Members of this House I think none has given more serious thought—as reflected by certain articles in the Press—to this question, than the right hon. Gentleman. The whole trend of modern industrial organisation is towards the great cartel. The efficiency of our competitive power in the world in future must depend upon the efficient organisation of combines, and I think that that fact has been recognised, and recognised very boldly and sincerely, by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley. It has been my business since 1921 to make various investigations throughout Europe
of the conditions of industry and the variety and quality of organisations against which we in this country have had to compete in the world markets. Everywhere one visited one found these powerful organisations directed by great business men, and supported by the great trade union organisations. I remember making a careful investigation of the conditions of organisation affecting Krupps in 1922. An hon. Friend, a Member of this House, and myself, were afforded every facility for examining for ourselves the relationship between the great combine which Krupps even then, and still more now, stands for, and the whole series of trade union organisations in which the workpeople of Krupps are embodied. We found that this great organisation was in constant touch with the heads of the groups of its own workpeople so as to establish a continuous working relationship. A perfect understanding was maintained and fair play was meted out to those who work with their hands and who contribute to the material success of the whole concern. We found the same all over Germany.
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley will agree that the efficiency of Germany industrially before the War was largely the result of two things. The first was the way in which great aggregations of enterprise had been brought together to cheapen production, control markets, inspire research and give incentive and help to new inventions and new devices in trade. The second was the continuous co-operation between the great financial corporations of Germany and these industrial combines to which I have alluded. We may make up our minds that, whether we like it or not, in face of a limited world consumption and a steadily growing world production, our competitive effectiveness can only be raised to its highest level by the continuous extension under wise and careful provisions of these greater combinations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, head!"] I am delighted to receive the approval of hon. Members opposite and I agree with my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment that no Member on this side of the House and certainly no one of His Majesty's Ministers, would suggest facilitating the establishment of these great enterprises if, in their operative effect, they were for a moment to injure the position of the workpeople.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: Will the hon. Member now show us where they do not injure the working class?

Mr. HANNON: I have already said I had the opportunity of examining the relationship between these combines in Germany and their workpeople. I had the opportunity of finding out the facts from the workpeople themselves. The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir Philip Dawson) and I came face to face with the group committees of the workpeople and we were assured by them that, as between themselves and those responsible for the direction of these great combines all the cards were placed on the table. The full facts relating to the conduct of the industry, its earnings, its productive costs and the various elements which entered into the efficient maintenance of marketing power were all placed before them. Therefore a friendly understanding had been established. You find the same thing in the Rheinmetal, Dussel-dorf group, the Thyssens, Mannheim group and the great chemical group as well as the electricity group. I have had the opportunity in conjunction with some of my colleagues of examining the whole structure of industrial organisation on the Continent and I am satisfied that the only means to be adopted by this country is to take the example and to build up similar combines, subject of course to any reasonable limitations which will safeguard the interests of the consumers and the workers.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley will recall that recently the Belgian Government, with whom I know he is in great sympathy from many points of view, appointed a National Commission on Industrial Production. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) knows something of the work of this Belgian Commission, which has been sitting for the last two years. It was appointed to examine the various direction in which Belgium could develop its competitive effectiveness in relation to the countries surrounding it, and particularly in relation to ourselves. One of the most striking recommendations of this important Commission is that the only means by which Belgium can maintain its high level of competitive strength, vis-a-vis, with surrounding
competitive countries is by the Government giving every possible facility for the establishment of large industrial groups. It says that these groups must be formed, first, for the purpose of cheapening production and, secondly, for the purpose of organising distribution, reaching markets, collecting information and doing the thousand-and-one things that are essential if industrial vitality is to be maintained in the highly competitive world of to-day. They have made conditions in Belgium that in the case of public contracts these should be arranged with large industrial groups so as to exclude the possibility of any foreign firm securing a contract. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) will approve, I hope, of the recommendations of this Belgian Commission when I tell him that they have asked their Government not to give a single public contract to a foreign tenderer unless there is such a substantial margin between the foreign and the Belgian tenderers as would inflict injury on the Belgian Treasury. That recommendation should have some interest for those hon. and right hon. Members who still profess unqualified attachment to the doctrines of Free Trade.
In connection with the question of combines I would direct attention to a remarkable article in the March issue of "The Banker" by an outstanding authority on finance in the City whose name is familiar to many hon. Members, namely, Mr. W. W. Payne. Mr. Payne writes with his usual clearness and conciseness in pointing out certain defects in our financial and industrial organisation. The principal defect to which he draws attention is the want of some means whereby new inventions, new discoveries, new efforts for the advancement of industry in this country can receive sympathy and practical support at the most difficult and embarrassing stages in their development. The great trust, the great combine, the highly organised group of business productive organisations is the great means whereby we can carry out scientific research, extend investigation to all the possibilities of an enterprise, find means of starting new industries or of re-vitalising industries which are in danger of going out of existence. By no other means—except the direct intervention of the
State, which everybody with experience of industrial organisation condemns—can we afford facilities for the development and expansion of industry and enterprise. Take the dye industry, for example. Seventy years ago the basic principles on which the great dye industry of Germany has been built up were discovered by a Glasgow chemist. My hon. "Friend behind me is always ready to advertise a Glasgow man whenever he gets the chance in this House—a very good thing to do. That chemist discovered the process by which the highly technical fabric of the dye industry has been built up in Germany, and at that time there was no organisation, no means whereby you could get the financial, the practical, support to develop it in this country.

Major CRAWFURD: Surely it is a fact that W. H. Perkin, who discovered the aniline dye, made repeated efforts to get it taken up in this country?

10.0.p.m.

Mr. HANNON: That is precisely my point; I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. He took his process round from factory to factory, from financier to financier, from public man to public man. There was no organisation with the necessary means behind it to help him to get it effectively established in this country, and, consequently, he had to take it to Germany, where it became the sub-structure for the gigantic industry which has been set up in that country. In supporting this Amendment. I am satisfied that not merely must we have great combines in this country, but we must have great international combines as well. I do not mind confessing in this House that I was responsible for bringing about quite recently what is commonly known as the Broadlands conference. That may be a wicked act in the judgment of some hon. Members opposite, but I am as convinced now as I have been at any moment during the past seven years that it is prejudicial to the interests of the workpeople of this country if we have great German industries and great British industries cutting each other's throats in the outside markets of the world. I will give an example of what I mean. One of the Baltic States in 1924 agreed to a contract for coal for its railways, and as soon as it became known that that con-
tract was a very substantial one which was going to the North of England, the German agent in the capital of that particular Baltic State set to work and offered Ruhr coal at, I think, 1s. 3d. a ton less than we could deliver it. All that the North-Eastern coal exporter was getting out of that coal was 3d. a ton. The German got nothing out of it, and the particular State was perfectly prepared to pay a not unreasonable price which would give some profit to the coal producer in one country or the other. Would it not be better for the two countries to have an understanding, get a reasonable profit out of the coal, and divide it between the people in the North of England and those in the Ruhr,, than to supply another country with coal at no profit at all? You have that sort of thing continuously happening, and I believe the sooner we can come to an understanding with our German friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I am not afraid to say in this House that the sooner we come to an understanding with the Germans, the French and the Belgians—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the Russians!"] I am perfectly prepared to be friendly with Russia when Russia—[Interruption.] The sooner we come to an understanding with those countries in the steel industry, and get our quota of steel predictions recognised, the better it will be far the steel industry in this country and the better for the steel-workers of the whole of Europe.
This topic might be indefinitely extended, but I do not propose to take a moment longer, except to say that I cordially support the Amendment, and sincerely hope the Motion will be rejected. I believe it would be to the advantage of this House, the country and everybody engaged in industry, if who could only have some more generous and friendly understanding with hon. Members opposite on these questions. Why are we always quarrelling and squabbling one side with the other on questions which vitally affect the country? I am all for peace in industry. Peace in industry can only be accomplished by understanding economic facts. The hon. Gentleman himself is an economist, and ought to recognise the economic facts. That kind of friendly relationship will never be brought about by madcap Motions of this kind.

Mr. TOWNEND: I was very interested in the remarks of the last speaker as to the conditions he found in Germany. I observed that his first references to the conditions there appeared to centre round the necessity of co-operation between industrial combinations and financial corporations, and it was not until his attention was drawn to another factor essential to the life of industry, namely, the working sections, that he bestowed a very interesting commentary on that side of the development.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member is a little unfair. I was proceeding to show where the workpeople came in at the time that the interruption was made.

Mr. TOWNEND: I am prepared to accept that, and will follow on with the train of thought into which his words drove my mind. He suggested, nay, he definitely stated that the group conditions in the various organisations, along with those who control the industry, met together face to face. and across the table, with the full cards displayed thereon, arrived at a solution satisfactory to the whole of the interests concerned in the industry. I want to ask him whether he implied by that, that not only simple questions of management, the application of trade union regulations and the like, but were the bigger questions introduced into those discussions? Were the real cards laid upon the table? I venture to suggest that that perfect picture of understanding between capital and labour, that he endeavoured to suggest applied in Germany, does not square with the facts, and we have a long way to go, even if it did, before we in this country can arrive at the stage suggested in the solution he applies to the industrial problems surrounding the development of trusts and combines in this country. I know that the industry with which I am connected, the railway industry, approached this very same question, and, although we have been able to do a great deal in the way the hon. Member suggests, in removing slight causes of friction, the inner development, the real essential factors of the railway industry, are still a sealed book to the labour side, and are a long way from the stage that the hon. Gentleman suggested. We have in that industry to-day an indica-
tion of how far we are prepared to go along these lines.
May I tell him that, following upon the operation of the Railways Act, 1921, when the railway industry was concentrated into four groups, there was an opportunity, such as he visualised, when there might have been better relations established, reacting upon the subsequent success of the railways, but no such opportunity was offered. Just in the same way as obtained in previous periods, when the railways were divided into different sections, the working classes were entirely ignored. I was interested in the remarks which were made by the Mover of the Amendment. He made reference to some poetry. Might I draw his attention to the lines which say that
All the world's a stage,
and
One man in his time plays many parts.
He has played at least two parts to-day which I think he will have the utmost difficulty in reconciling. As an advocate of private enterprise, he condemns proposals such as are contained in the Resolution, but I have not the slightest doubt that he walked into the Lobby in support of the Government's action in reference to the film industry. When he makes attacks on possible Government control as suggested in the Resolution, he should bear in mind that what he does comes home to roost. I only rose to give to the House what the Mover of the Resolution was unable to find. He pointed out that, as a result of combines and trusts, certain reactions take effect upon the lives of the workers. The firm of Knight and Company were referred to. May I read what the Mover of the Resolution had intended to refer to, which is that trusts do not altogether conduce to cheaper prices for the consumer, and better conditions for the workers? Instead of improving the conditions of the workers, instead of the consumer benefiting as a result of trusts, all the benefits go in increased dividends. This is what the chairman of that company said:
Considering the very strong and satisfactory position of the company and its prosperity, I feel it is my duty to point out to the ordinary shareholders that, under our existing constitution, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to pay a dividend of 25 per cent, on the ordinary shares,
and, in y opinion, the shareholders would be well advised to take advantage of what was neither more or less than a guaranteed 25 per cent., a perpetual 25 per cent. to the shareholders of John Knight, Limited, as a result of the taking over of the shares in that company by the great combine of Lever Brothers.
The African and Eastern Trade Corporation followed the same line. At a meeting of the shareholders it was recommended to the shareholders to accept terms very similar to those offered in the case of John Knight, Limited. The chairman said:
Althought a dividend of 30 per cent. had been paid in the most prosperous year ever experienced in that trade, the offer of Lever Brothers provided a dividend of 37½ per cent. to be continued to the shareholders of the Corporation, so far as it is humanly possible to foresee, in perpetuity.

Mr. ROY WILSON: The African and Eastern Trade Corporation have nothing whatever to do with Lever Brothers, Limited.

Mr. TOWNEND: The point I am endeavouring to emphasise is that the main consideration of all those who take part in these combines and trusts the first thing they consider is not improving the conditions of their workers, it is not the interests of the consumers, but what return can be got for the capital invested, and if they can get 25 per cent. or 37½ per cent. in preference to the smaller dividends, which they got as a small company, they are eager to jump into the large combines and trusts. The main factor that influences us in our attitude towards the corporations is not that corporations as such are evil. They may be a necessary development of the capitalist system, but they render the transference from that system to the Socialist system far easier to bring about. What at the moment we are largely concerned with is the motive that prompts their formation and the evils which follow in their train. If those could be eliminated, I am confident that the attitude we have hitherto taken up with regard to them might be varied. Meanwhile, because of the misery and degradation that are the result of forming these huge corporations, we support the Resolution.

Mr. WADDINGTON: The Mover of the Motion stated that the cotton trade
was a combine which had held up employment in the industry, to the detriment of the workers in it. Certainly it is news to anyone with any knowledge of the cotton trade that there is a combine in that trade. What is considered to be an evil in Lancashire is the absence of a combine, and a great many people consider that the trade would have been more prosperous for both workers and capitalists had there been a nearer approach to a combine. Another point made by the Mover of the Motion was that the employers in the combine had reduced the employment to 30 per cent. of the possible output and thereby impoverished the workers. That is also a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member. The short time movement in the cotton trade has only dealt with 26,000,000 spindles out of 57,000,000, and there has been no attempt at short time in the other section of the trade. So far as the manufacturing side is concerned, that is, the great producers of cloth, with the 800,000 looms which there are in Lancashire, there has been no attempt whatever to have any organised short time. All those individual cotton manufacturers have had to stand on their own footing, they have had to fight their own battles, and they have just run as well as they could, or they have stopped when they could not run their machinery. It has not been a question in Lancashire of extracting high profits by short time amongst that section which has been running short time. It has been due to the impossibility of selling the commodity in the markets of the world. The high price of cotton has been one of the determining factors.
The Seconder of the Motion made a most remarkable statement when he said that a paper called the "Cotton Times" had published some facts about the curtailment of the acreage, and that the acreage was curtailed in America to suit financial operations. To what was he referring? He must have been referring to last year's conditions, because he spoke of the crop having been sown and afterwards acre after acre having to be given up, because there was no money, and because the banks had refused to finance the farmers. He cannot have referred to the current season, because the sowing has not yet begun. As to the statement in regard to the curtailment of a[...]re-
age, the facts are totally against him. There was the largest acreage in America last year that there ever has been, and there was the greatest crop that there ever has been, so that, so far from any combination having resulted in reducing the acreage, there is no evidence whatever to justify it.

Mr. BROMLEY: Is it not a fact within the knowledge of the hon. Member that last year there was an abnormal cotton crop, and is it not true within his knowledge that the American cotton growers burnt 4,000,000 tons of the cotton crop to keep up the price?

Mr. WADDINGTON: That is an extraordinary statement, and I am very much surprised that it should be possible for an hon. Member of this House' to be so lacking in knowledge of what constitutes the cotton trade as to venture to make such a statement as that, in such an Assembly as this. Four million tons of cotton to be burnt! There are four and-a-half bales of cotton to the ton—large size bales. There is a crop of 18 million bales. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that 4,000,000 tons have been burned out of a crop of 18,000,000 bales! A suggestion was made in America, it was a very foolish suggestion, that 4,000,000 bales—not tons—should be burnt, but nobody in authority in America would ever dream of carrying out such a suggestion.

Mr. BROMLEY: I accept the correction between bales and tons. [Laughter.] Perhaps I am not the only hon. Member who sometimes makes a slip. But I was in America last year, and that was in the American Press—not only in one part of America but throughout that Continent, because I went right across; and that was accepted as information by the Press of the United States.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Whatever may have been the rumours circulating in newspapers they have not been justified by any burning of bales of cotton. Although there was this huge crop last year, and although every effort has been made to induce the American farmer to curtail his acreage, he is so individualistic, and there are so many thousands of them cultivating cotton, that it is not expected that there will be a reduction of more than 10 per cent. in the acreage during the current season. I just wanted to
draw the attention of the House to these facts in connection with a trade of which I know something, because I did not think it was right for the House to come to a judgment on the inaccurate statements which had been made by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: In some quarters it might be contended that we have been engaged to-night in an academic Debate, though no doubt on a subject of great industrial importance; but I think the House will agree that attention has been drawn to a large number of concrete facts in industry and commerce which have made the discussion of a very valuable character. Certainly we on this side at once admit that our Motion dealing with trusts and combines raises the whole question of the Socialist issue as between some form of public ownership and control on the one hand and what remains of what is commonly called the competitive system on the other. Before we can understand a problem of this kind accurately we must first survey the facts; in the second place, find out what has been the broad influence, of the trust and the combine up to the present day; and, lastly, ask ourselves what the future industrial organisation is to be. Whatever be our political or economic views, I think the hon. Members will agree that in the national interest there should be much clearer thought on these questions and, if we can humanly achieve it, some agreement as to policy.
The facts have been admitted in the course of the Debate. There is no doubt that, following the industrial revolution, there was a great wave of free competition in this country. In the last quarter of the last century that was modified from many points of view, and during the past 25 years there has been a rapid increase in the growth of combines and trusts, with the objects inter alia of getting rid of waste of competition and achieving the stabilisation of prices, all of them professing to be in the interests of efficiency in industry and commerce. The most recent work by Mr. Fitzgerald calls attention to these combines and syndicates in practically every important branch of British industry and commerce to-day. There are two or three instances which are important from the point of view of a Debate of this kind. Hon. Members are familiar with the steps in
this direction which have been taken by the Imperial Chemicals combine. We have been told that the main object of that combine was that it should be able to offer in this country a united front to the competition of Germany, on the one hand, and to a less extent to the competition of the United States, on the other.
That combine emphasised the question of efficiency. They believed that federation of capital was necessary. While it is true they suggested that the object of this combination was to meet competition, it must be plain to the whole House that this undertaking can only succeed if they get also that complete control of finance of the constituent organisations which will make their trust a reality, especially on the Continent of Europe. Almost immediately it is most likely the next step will be some suggestion of fusion with a similar organisation in Germany for the purpose of getting rid of the competition which is supposed to be the fundamental faith of hon. Gentlemen opposite at general elections in this country. Another illustration that was mentioned was that of the International Steel Pact, under which four European countries have combined and pooled their resources for the production of steel. A controversy has arisen as to whether the British steel industry should become part and parcel of this very important body. According to the latest information the chief point has been the determination of the quota to be allotted to this country. Whether any agreement up to the present has been reached, I cannot say, but the important point is that here in regard to steel you have a profound change from the point of view of the old free competition in the direction of a combine and trust and a further disappearance of that great cardinal article of faith which is supposed to be held by all those who oppose Socialism.
Beyond doubt these are very important changes, but I beg hon. Members opposite to-night with perfect impartiality to look at the other changes which have taken place under the auspices of the Government which they themselves have supported since 1921. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) who proposed the Amendment, said he was hostile to all forms of State regulation and con-
trol I think we are bound to recognise that the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) stands in a different category because he believes in strengthening trusts as much as possible, but he wished to make it certain that they would not be so powerful or complete as to dominate the interests of consumers, workers and the people at large. How that domination is to be modified, other than by some kind of State intervention or some form of anti-trust legislation, most of us on this side would be quite unable to understand. You have, therefore, a marked divergence between the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and that of the hon. Member who seconded it. Be that as it may, the point that I want to bring out in this connection is this, that it really does not lie with hon. Members opposite to lead any argument that is worth while about State interference or legislative regulation at the present time, because they themselves, within recent years, have been driven by the force of economic circumstances to adopt very large measures of that kind.
Let us take three illustrations, and I have only time in this Debate to mention three. In 1921, for the express purpose of getting rid of what Sir Eric Geddes himself called the waste of competition, so far as it survived in the railway world, an Act was passed which gave us four great railway amalgamations or trusts; and, while it is true that a certain competition on a geographical basis remains in the railway world, no hon. Member will dispute that the object of that legislation, whether it has been achieved or not, was to wipe out the surviving competition of one hundred or more railway undertakings, and to replace that by all the efficiency and economy in working which the promoters of that Measure believed would come from combination. Let us be perfectly fair in this discussion. Five or six years of industrial depression have made it impossible for that Act freely and beneficially to express itself in the industry and commerce of this country; but that does not for one moment alter the principle upon which it is founded, which is the principle of combination, and Sir Eric Geddes, who certainly has no sympathy with Socialistic ideas, used, during the nine weeks of Debate in 1921, precisely the arguments which have been
used by the Fabian Society and other sections of the Labour and Socialist movement in this country for 25 or 30 years. That is one act of regulation, and I beg hon. Members opposite to remember also that you regulate the earnings of these undertakings under this Act of Parliament, because specific direction was given to the Rates Tribunal so to fix rates and charges as to give, as nearly as may be, compatible with efficient and economical working, the standard revenue of 1913, and a great mass of other machinery was set up, all of which you were driven to do because you recognised that no longer could competition remain free in that industry.
Another illustration is much more recent in character. We have heard an hon. Member opposite solemnly—I speak with perfect respect; I listened with great regard to his speech—proposing an Amendment to our Motion on the ground that he is hostile to State interference or State regulation of industry; but what was done in the case of the Electricity Bill? A few weeks ago, a Bill was passed which set up a central electricity authority, which, according to some hon. Members on the other side of the House, put this industry into a strait-jacket, or tinder a very large measure of regulation, which gave you your gridiron and your centralisation policy with large selected stations, all because the Weir Committee had recognised that the form of competition among the 400 or 500 stations that were then in existence had broken in their hands, and could no longer be tolerated if industry and commerce in this vital service were to have a chance. Hon. Members opposite supported that. Last of all, a few weeks ago, the Postmaster-General, in what is believed to be an individualist Government, came along with a scheme which made broadcasting—and I admit that it must be a monopoly in this country—which made broadcasting a public corporation. That proposal, which was embodied in two agreements of a most Socialistic character, was passed unanimously by this House. All this argument about no legislative interference and no State support or intervention is so much idle matter, when we bend our minds to the plain economic facts of the situation. Hon. Members opposite talk about State intervention.
The lobbies of the Board of Trade are crowded with people who want their industries protected and regulated, and other Departments are crowded by people who want subsidies for new industries. They will take State assistance every time when it is something they need but the moment it comes to an economic undertaking run successfully they say that is for private enterprise. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways.
The second point is this. I will mention it only in passing, because time does not permit to do more. What about the effect on prices of the great trust movement in this country, and indeed other countries? Some of us have been condemned in one way or another to make a good deal of analysis of this problem. Some of the larger trusts which have the whole market at their feet are undeniably in a position to charge very much what they please, and it is beyond doubt, as their profits show, that they have made a large return and are making even larger returns year by year, I imagine, at the public expense. But I do not want to press that argument too far to-night because the analysis tends rather to run on these lines, that if the great trusts charge a very low price it will bring a volume of demand which it does not pay them to lay down the capital expenditure to cover; in fact they will turn away trade. If they charge a very high price and make for a certain time an exaggerated profit, that will tend to encourage competition and the use of substitutes. Be it noted that a trust does not want competition, though it is usually manned by believers in the competitive system. So what generally happens in the average trust operation in this country is to choose a kind of intermediate price which is not too low or too high, but the broad effect of which is to keep the market and to get the maximum net return for the trust operation. There is a case that can be made from the point of view of prices, and my hon. Friends behind have put it clearly and definitely, but the real charge which we bring against this policy and this tendency is the charge of concentrated control, the kind of power which is centred in these great federations of capital and the difficulty of reconciling that federation and combination with the public interest.
That leads us naturally and easily through two points to the only one that I dare take time to mention in conclusion. What is the future organisation of industry going to be? What are we going to do with the trusts and combines in Great Britain and in other parts of the world? There are certain hon. Members who will say, "Let us have a series of Acts of Parliament, at all events, for the purpose of regulating prices and, therefore, protecting the consumer." I agree that legislation of that kind is very abundantly required to-day. Of course, we on this side make it perfectly plain that, as industry is organised, and more particularly as trusts are powerful, they will be able to get round a good deal of that legislation, and for all practical purposes it may not take you very far in the protection of British or other consumers. In the next place, hon. Members opposite may say, in the terms of the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham: "You may be driven"—he did not use this actual phrase—"to some form of trust regulation" or, as I have heard hon. Members on the Liberal benches say: "You may be driven to anti-trust measures in this country," just as the Americans have been driven to that class of legislation. I ask hon. Members opposite to review with perfect impartiality any anti-trust legislation in America and to tell me that it has had more than an infinitesimal influence upon the great trust movement in the United States. The plain truth is, that they can drive a coach and four through any Act of Parliament that was ever passed. They can find ways of getting round what is, on paper, the most extreme anti-trust legislation. All that kind of legislation perishes in practice.
What is the alternative? No hon. Member opposite suggests that you can wipe out all trusts and combinations. Matters have gone much too far for that. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham that if we are going to compete with other countries in the world upon a highly trustified basis, under post-War conditions, with our £8,000,000,000 of debt and with the burden of post-War obligations which have to be shouldered by Great Britain, you must have a move-
ment along the lines of combines and-syndicates; but our case from this side of the House is that that is not the solution and can never be the final solution of the industrial problem in Great Britain. Our solution is not on the lines of State control described by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) and others. I would ask hon. Members opposite to turn to the evidence tendered to the Royal Commission on the coal industry by our movement, and endorsed by the Miners' Federation, and they will find that it is proposed to run industry in this country on publicly-owned lines, I admit, but by people who know that industry outside and inside, in its administration, in its, manual and all its other sides, and I suggest to the Government and to all hon. Members opposite that they have a working basis supplied from their own side, in the terms of the broadcasting agreement to which they gave unanimous assent. That is going to be the line of our public ownership, the line of public corporation, and I am perfectly satisfied, with hon. Friends of mine on this side, that it is the play of that great economic and inevitable force in this country that will carry our movement to triumph.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): This subject can only be considered if we keep before us all the time the vital matters which have been mentioned this evening and remember that one of the most important factors in the industrial condition of this country to-day is the absolute necessity to fit and equip ourselves to meet the developing competition in foreign countries in industries in which 40 or 50 years ago we were the leaders and in which we are not the leaders to-day. We cannot hope to meet that competition if our manufacturers and traders are expending unnecessary energy in wasteful competition among themselves. The Motion starts by saying that the economic tendency towards trusts and combines is inevitable in the present capitalistic system, whatever that may be. The combines referred to in the Motion may be considered generally as falling into three distinct groups. First, the consolidations of producers, whether horizontal or vertical. By horizontal I mean firms engaged in producing the same thing, and by vertical I mean the
concerns producing commodities in successive processes. The second group is that concerned with producers' agreements in regard to prices, and the third group that concerned with distributors' agreements. The Motion on the Paper seems to be more directed to the third group than to the other two.
With regard to the first class, these came into existence out of a desire to eliminate or reduce competition and also by reason of a desire to secure the advantages resulting from large scale production and the elimination of waste and overhead charges. So far as the tendency towards consolidation is the result of these considerations, and in many cases it is the chief factor, it will be just as pronounced under any other economic regime as it is under the capitalist regime. The desire to eliminate or restrict competition has admittedly played some part in the formation of these combines; it is the avowed purpose in most agreements, whether of producers or distributors. Experience shows that unrestrained competition tends to destroy itself, and it is equally true that this tendency of the elimination of competition is not a characteristic of any particular economic system, indeed it is the avowed object of the alternative which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has just offered the House as a substitute for the present system. It has not been demonstrated that the removal of the stimulus of individual gain will result in greater efficiency or greater economy, or that we shall be in a better condition to compete with our competitors. It is therefore quite false to ascribe to the capitalist system tendencies which would be equally characteristic of any other system.
The Motion seems to refer to the need of protecting the consumer from the evil consequences of this tendency, and cites the high prices of such commodities as fuel, food and housing material. With regard to food, the establishment of a Food Council is a guarantee that the interests of the consumers are watched at any rate by an impartial body. It is true that price fixing arrangements exist in those trades which are fairly uniform commodities, like milk. The operations of the price fixing organisation in food are carefully watched by the Food
Council and they will deal with any action which is considered to be harmful to the consumer. Then the price of bread is regulated by the price of flour. Flour is regulated by the price of wheat. That system has been accepted by the bakers of the country. In the case of meat there is an inquiry, and it is the same in the case of fish and so forth. I think it is relevant that I should point to the value of the watchfulness of the Food Council, in that we have on the Statute Book today a Short Weights Act, after 40 years of effort, by the municipal councils to get this matter dealt with. That is one sphere of action in which the Government have certainly helped in regard to trusts and price fixing combinations which could have possibly harmful results.
One of the chief matters to which the Coal Commission directed its attention was the lack of combination among coalowners. There was admittedly evidence of consultations by coal merchants in respect of coal prices, but the Coal Commission, after quoting the evidence to the effect that nothing in the nature of a coal merchants' ring existed, stated that no serious evidence had been brought before them to impugn the substantial correctness of this contention. The Royal Commission, in fact, emphasised the need for more combination in production and distribution in the interests of distributor and consumer alike.
With regard to building materials, which covers a very wide range of products, the situation has been watched for the past four or five years by Inter-Departmental Committees appointed by the Ministry of Health and the President of the Board of Trade. The Committees have published a number of Reports, and, though they have from time to time criticised certain matters, there is no-evidence in their Report of general or systematic profiteering. Therefore, so far as the commodities mentioned in the Motion are concerned in respect to which there might be combinations of traders which could inflict hardship, in regard to the price of necessities of life, on a large section of the poorer people, the Government are able to take such action as I have indicated in the setting up of the Food Council and by the examination of these matters through such bodies as the Committee on Building Materials, and
by these means to secure publicity for, and to provide opportunities for public criticism of, the actions of any combination whether of producers or of distributors. There is general agreement that this method has had a salutory effect. If occasion arises, that method can be pursued, although at present there does not seem to be any evidence except in isolated cases that there has been any abuse of the powers which obtain in the case of such combinations. There have been certain inquiries, but they have failed to find anything more in the case of a negligible number of people than isolated instances of profiteering, although, at the time, conditions were most favourable to profiteering.
Departmental and other Committees and Commissions which have inquired into the subject have been impressed by the great advantage accruing to Germany and the United States from combinations of capital and administration, in regard to the purchase of raw material and the

marketing of produce, as for example in the engineering and shipbuilding trades, have suggested that the creation of strong combinations would be of advantage to Great Britain. It is an important consideration that there is now much greater opportunity for watchfulness on the part of Parliament and for hon. Members to bring pressure to bear on the Government through the various inquiries and Committees that make public all the details of particular trades. There is, too, a greater appreciation, I am sure, on the part of the administrators of these great combines of the necessity for so administering their businesses as to keep the confidence of the great British public. I conclude, as I began, by saying that not only are we not keen enough about combination, but that We do not go far enough with it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 233.

Division No. 55.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Amman, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr. John


Baker, Walter
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bate[...], Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute]
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood. D.
Sneil, [...]arry


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Clowes, S.
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Maxtor., James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Welsh, J. C.


G[...]bbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Murnln, H.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea. E)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Halt, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pureed, A. A.
TELLICRS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. A. Barnes.


Hardle, George D.
Riley, Ben



Heyday, Arthur
Ritson, J.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, J. Sandoman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Apsley, Lord


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Athoil, Duchess of


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greaves -Lord, Sir Walter
Nuttall, Ellis


Bainlel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Ho[...]. John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barnson, Major Sir Harry
Grotrian, H. Brent
Penny, Frederick George


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hall, Lieut.Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perring, Sir William George


Bethel, A.
Hall, Vice-Admiral sir R. (Eastbourne)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pllcher, G.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Radford, E. A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G, J. C.
Raine, W.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hartington, Marquess of
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hawke, John Anthony
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J,
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ropner, Major L.


Burman, J. B.
Herbert, S.(York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Runciman, Rt. Hun. Walter


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hills, Major John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hilton, Cecil
Salmon, Major I.


Campbell, E. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Carver, Major W. H.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cassels, J. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Savery, S. S.


Chad wick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slancy, Major P. Kenyon


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jephcott, A. R.
Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)


Cope, Major William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Couper, J. B.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lister, Cunilffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Little, Dr E. Graham
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Crooke, J. S[...]edley (Deritend)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Loder, J. de V.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Cookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Looker, Herbert William
Tasker, R Inigo.


Cuozon, Captain Viscount
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Templeton, W. P.


Davidson,J.(Hertl'd. Hemel Hempst'd)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. S.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tinne, J. A.


Duckworth, John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Waddington, R


Ellis, R. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


England, Colonel A.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Warrender, Sir Victor


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S- R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Forrest, W.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wiggins, William Martin


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Merriman, F. B.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Co[...]nel George


Gates, Percy
Monsell. Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gauit, Liaut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Womersley, W. J.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Grace, John
Neville. R. J.



Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grant, Sir J. A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Mr. Roy Wilson and Mr. Hannon.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Question proposed, "That those words he there added."

Mr. STEPHEN: rose—

It being after Eleven o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Order, That Mr. Cyril Lloyd be added to the Select Committee of Public Accounts.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes after Eleven O'Clock,